Does physical activity affect quality of life, disease symptoms and immune measures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease? A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are a group of chronic, episodic inflammatory conditions of the large and small intestines. Individuals with IBD have been reported to use physical activity (PA) as a complementary therapy although the effectiveness of PA for reducing disease burden in patients with IBD is not known. The review objective is to evaluate published studies on physical activity and IBD focusing on quality of life, disease burden markers and immunological outcomes. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, WEB OF SCIENCE, CINHAL, and SCOPUS (to December 2008). Studies were included if they 1) were provided in English; 2) dealt with IBD in humans; 3) focused on the outcome measures of health related quality of life, clinical disease indicators or immune function; and 4) included PA as a primary intervention for IBD cases. In total, 7 studies were included in this systematic review: 5 were on PA and quality of life measures and inflammatory disease markers, and 2 on PA and immune measures. Four studies showed that PA significantly increased quality of life for IBD patients as assessed by various questionnaires. PA was also associated with decreased disease activity. There was no evidence that PA affected immune outcomes in patients with IBD. The role of PA as an adjunctive therapy for patients with IBD has not been well characterized in the literature. However, there is some evidence that PA may improve quality of life and reduce disease activity in patients with IBD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".