Physical activity and exercise in peritoneal dialysis: International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis and the Global Renal Exercise Network practice recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life participation requiring physical activity and physical function is a key patient-reported outcome for people receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Clinician guidance is required from multidisciplinary sources regarding exercise and activity advice to address the specific needs of this group. From August 2020 through to June 2021, the Global Renal Exercise Network and the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis reviewed the published literature and international clinical experience to develop a set of clinical practice points. A set of questions relevant to physical activity and exercise were developed from the perspective of a person receiving PD and were the basis for the practice point development. The GRADE framework was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and to guide clinical practice points. The review of the literature found sparse quality evidence, and thus the clinical practice points are generally based on the expert consensus of people receiving PD, PD exercise expert clinicians and experienced PD exercise researchers. Clinical practice points address timing of exercise and activity (post-catheter insertion, peritoneal space empty or full), the uptake of specific activities (work, sex, swimming, core exercise), potential adverse outcomes related to activity and exercise (exit site care, perspiration, cardiovascular compromise, fatigue, intra-abdominal pressure), the effect of exercise and activity on conditions of interest (mental health, obesity, frailty, low fitness) and exercise nutrition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".