Supine Versus Upright Exercise in Patients With Hepatopulmonary Syndrome and Orthodeoxia: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a pulmonary complication of liver disease found in 10 to 32% of patients with cirrhosis and characterized by intrapulmonary vascular dilatations and abnormal oxygenation. Liver transplantation is the only effective therapy for this disease. Patients with HPS have significant exercise limitation, impacting their quality of life and associated with poor liver transplant outcomes. Many patients with HPS exhibit orthodeoxia – an improvement in oxygenation in the supine compared to the upright position. We hypothesize that exercise capacity will be superior in the supine compared to the upright position in such patients.Methods: We propose a randomized controlled cross-over trial in patients with HPS and orthodeoxia, comparing the effect of supine versus upright position on exercise. Participants will be randomized to cycle ergometry in either the supine or upright position, followed by a crossover to the alternate position after a minimum of 1 day to a maximum of 4 weeks. Exercise will be performed at a constant work rate of 70-85% of the predicted peak work rate until the “stopping time” is reached, defined by exhaustion, profound desaturation, or safety concerns (drop in systolic blood pressure or life-threatening arrhythmia). The primary outcome will be the difference in stopping time between exercise positions.Discussion: HPS patients have hypoxemia leading to significant exercise limitation. If our study is positive, a supine exercise regimen could become a routine prescription for patients with HPS and orthodeoxia, enabling them to exercise more effectively. Future studies could explore the corresponding effects of a supine exercise training regimen on physiologic variables such as long-term exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, and liver transplantation outcomes. Trial registration: The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS): NCT04004104. Registered on 1st July 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04004104
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".