Effect of a 12-Week Mixed Training on Body Quality in People Living with HIV: Does Age and HIV Duration Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of HIV duration on exercise adaptations has not yet been studied. Moreover, the age at which subjects living with HIV are the most responsive to exercise is not clear. AIMS: Investigate the effect of a mixed exercise training program on physical performance changes in individuals living with HIV and explore if age or HIV duration influence these adaptations in men. METHODS: In this feasibility study, participants followed a 12-week mixed exercise training program, three times/week, 45 min/session. Physical performance including functional capacities (normal 4-m walking test, 6min walking test), grip strength (hand dynamometer), muscle power, body composition (android and gynoid fat masses, appendicular lean mass) were evaluated pre- and post-intervention. Subgroup analysis according to the median age of the participants (age<50yrs vs. age≥50yrs) and median HIV duration (HIV<20yrs vs. HIV≥20yrs) were performed in men. RESULTS: A total of 27 participants (age: 54.5±6.8yrs, men: 85%; HIV duration: 19.3±7.6yrs) were included. At the end of the intervention, significant increases compared to baseline were seen in grip strength (p=0.017), leg power (p<0.001), normal walking speed (p<0.001) and 6-min walking distance (p=0.003). Following the intervention, parameters improved similarly in both age groups. However improvement was greater in those with HIV>20yrs than those with a shorter infection duration, with change (%) on total (p<0.001), android (p=0.02), and gynoid (p=0.05) fat masses as well as appendicular lean mass index (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Mixed exercise training seems to be an effective intervention to improve physical performance in individuals living with HIV. In addition, this study suggests that neither age nor HIV duration has influence on the effect of mixed training in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".