Physical Activity in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advancement in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), induction and maintenance of remission remain challenging to achieve in many patients and a significant proportion of patients with IBD experience mental health conditions, including anxiety, depression, and fatigue, which impair their quality of life (QoL). We aim to describe the available evidence regarding the effects of physical activity (PA) on the onset of IBD, its disease course, and important patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as QoL, fatigue, and mental health. METHODS: A literature search was performed using electronic databases to identify original articles that assessed the effects of PA in patients with IBD using PROMs. RESULTS: Prospective cohort and case-control studies demonstrate inverse relationships between PA and new-onset IBD in Crohn's disease but not in ulcerative colitis; however, they have small sample sizes and caution must be taken in considering associations versus causation. Small randomized controlled trials suggest promise for PA and beneficial outcomes, such as maintenance of clinical remission and improvement in QoL, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. However, these studies were small and underpowered, and limited by outcome measurements and durations of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians may consider discussing PA interventions with their patients on an individual basis, especially if they report impaired QoL, fatigue, depression, or anxiety, until disease-specific guidelines are available. Including PA as part of a primary prevention strategy in high-risk patients could be considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".