Implementação Clínica de Diferentes Estratégias para Reabilitação Baseada em Exercícios em Receptores de Transplante de Rim e Fígado: Um Estudo Piloto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is among the leading causes of death in solid organ transplant recipients with a functional graft. Although these patients could theoretically benefit from exercise-based rehabilitation (EBR) programs, their implementation is a challenge. OBJECTIVE: We present our initial experience on different delivery modes of a pilot EBR program in kidney and liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Thirty-two kidney or liver transplant recipients were invited for a 6-month EBR program delivered at the hospital gym, community gym or at home, according to the patient's preference. The significance level adopted was 5%. RESULTS: Ten patients (31%) did not complete their program. Among the 22 who did, 7 trained at the hospital gym, 7 at the community gym, and 8 at home. The overall effect was an 11.4% increase in maximum METs (Hedges' effect size g = 0.39). The hospital gym group had an increase in METs of 25.5% (g= 0.58, medium effect size) versus 10% (g= 0.25), and 6.5% (g= 0.20) for the community gym and home groups, respectively. There was a beneficial effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressures, greater for the hospital gym (g= 0.51 and 0.40) and community gym (g= 0.60 and 1.15) groups than for the patients training at home (g= 0.07 and 0.10). No significant adverse event was reported during the follow-up. CONCLUSION: EBR programs in kidney and liver transplant recipients should be encouraged, even if they are delivered outside a hospital gym, since they are safe with positive effects on exercise capacity and cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".