MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171839225 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfab091.001

MO611CARDIOPULMONARY RESERVE EXAMINED WITH CARDIOPULMONARY EXERCISE TESTING IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021· review· en· W3171839225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eva Pella, Marieta Theodorakopoulou, Afroditi Boutou, Maria Eleni Alexandrou, Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi, Aristi Boulmpou, Christodoulos Papadopoulos, Αikaterini Papagianni, Pantelis Sarafidis

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseAnaerobic exerciseMeta-analysisVO2 maxInternal medicinePhysical therapyRespiratory exchange ratioExercise intoleranceWorkloadCardiologyHeart failureIntensive care medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often present with reduced physical activity and exercise performance due to a number of factors relevant to co-existing disturbances of the cardiac, nervous and muscular systems. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is widely applied in daily clinical practice used for clinical evaluation of exercise intolerance and related symptoms (i.e. dyspnea, fatigue), as well risk stratification, and other applications in several medical fields. Method This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies which used CPET technology in adult patients with CKD to examine cardiopulmonary reserve in individuals with versus individuals without CKD. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak). Literature search involved PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases; manual search of article references and of grey literature was also performed. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to evaluate the quality of retrieved studies. Results From an initial 4944 literature records, we identified 29 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria; of these, 25 studies with complete data including 2213 participants were included in final meta-analysis. Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was significantly lower in CKD patients compared to controls without CKD (standardized-mean-difference, SMD:-1.40, 95%CI[-1.68, -1.13]) (Figure). Oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VO2AT) (SMD:-1.06, 95%CI[-1.34, -0.79]), maximum workload (weighted-mean-difference, WMD:-58.26, 95%CI[-74.14, -42.38]) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) (WMD:-0.02, 95%CI[-0.05, 0.01]) were also impaired in CKD patients compared to non-CKD individuals. In 3 studies comparing patients with CKD versus patients with heart failure without CKD VO2peak was higher in the former (WMD:6.60, 95%CI[3.02, 10.18]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusion VO2peak and other commonly analyzed CPET variables were lower in CKD patients compared to controls, indicating reduced functional cardiopulmonary reserve in the former. In contrast, CKD patients performed better when compared patients with heart failure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207