Disseminating education to solid organ transplant recipients to promote engagement in physical activity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the dissemination of education through a workshop to promote engagement in physical activity (PA) among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Methods: The in-person workshop consisted of expert-led lectures on topics related to physical activity (day 1) and sports and fitness training with volunteer coaches (day 2). There were separate streams for children/adolescents and adults. RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework was used to evaluate the impact of the workshop. Presenters and participants completed evaluations of the workshop using a 5-point Likert scale. A subgroup of adults completed a self-reported PA questionnaire at baseline and 4-weeks after the workshop. Results: = 0.16) in PA. However, 56% of SOT recipients reported changing their level of PA. Conclusion: An educational-workshop with hands-on training was an efficient and well-received method for disseminating awareness about the benefits of PA in SOT recipients. Innovation: Dissemination of evidence-based knowledge through a novel educational-workshop in a real-world setting has the potential to inform the decisions about PA behavior among SOT recipients.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it