MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191351663 · doi:10.1159/000517696

Physical Activity and Health in Chronic Kidney Disease

2021· review· en· W3191351663 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth R. Wilund, Stephanie Thompson, João L. Viana, Angela Yee‐Moon Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to nephrology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWastingKidney diseaseDiseasePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)SarcopeniaCardiorespiratory fitnessPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical Background and Epidemiology: Low physical activity is a common phenotype in individuals living with chronic kidney disease (CKD). It increases as renal function declines and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and a poor quality of life (QOL). Both behavioral and disease-related factors contribute to the low physical activity levels in CKD. CKD has profound negative effects on skeletal muscle structure and function that are related to impairments in mitochondrial function, inflammation, oxidative stress, metabolic acidosis, and other uremia-related factors. These factors promote muscle protein catabolism and wasting, and impair strength, physical performance, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Moreover, the high burden of comorbid disease contributes to patient fatigue, fear of injury, and poor exercise self-efficacy. All of these factors reinforce patient's sedentary behavior, leading to a vicious cycle of disease and disability that further compromises their health and QOL. Data from both observational studies and exercise interventions indicate that increasing levels of physical activity may provide a range of benefits in CKD patients, including attenuating declines in renal function, and improving markers of physical function, cardiovascular disease risk, and QOL. Unfortunately, these results have not led to widespread implementation of exercise programs in CKD, and physical inactivity and poor physical function remain hallmarks of the disease worldwide. Challenges and Solutions: There are many frequently cited barriers to implementing exercise programs in CKD. These include: a lack of training and knowledge about physical activity/exercise prescriptions and interventions among health professionals; inadequate time to implement exercise programs due to other clinical responsibilities; a lack of specific funding and incentives to develop these programs; and a poor quality of the data demonstrating efficacy of exercise. Many CKD patients also are unmotivated to incorporate exercise into their daily lives due to time constraints, depression, and other comorbid diseases, and poor self-efficacy for exercise. Given these barriers, it is not surprising that physical activity/exercise programs have not become a component of standard of care for CKD patients. We discuss several potential solutions to address these barriers, including: (1) providing better education and training for healthcare professionals who provide exercise advise and counselling to individuals with CKD; (2) providing incentives to reimburse payers to develop and maintain exercise programs in CKD; and (3) providing more personalized approaches to exercise prescription and implementation of exercise programs that consider the unique circumstances of individual CKD patients. In summary, low physical activity levels in CKD patients result from a combination of many factors that adversely impact patient's health and QOL. Addressing this problem will require comprehensive intervention strategies that consider both the unique pathophysiology of CKD and the individual circumstances of those living with the disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContributions to nephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207