Relationship of Exercise Capacity, Physical Function, and Frailty Measures With Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization in Lung Transplantation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of exercise capacity, frailty, and physical function are commonly used in lung transplant candidates and recipients to evaluate their physical limitations and the effects of exercise training and to select candidates for transplantation. It is unclear how these measures are related to clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization before and after lung transplantation. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe how measures of exercise capacity, physical function, and frailty are related to pre- and posttransplant outcomes. Methods: We considered studies of any design that included performance-based tests of exercise capacity, physical function, and frailty in adult lung transplant candidates or recipients. Outcomes of interest were clinical outcomes (eg, mortality, quality of life) and healthcare utilization. Results: Seventy-two articles met the inclusion criteria. The 6-min walk test (6MWT) was shown to be related to mortality on the waiting list with different distance values as cutoffs points. There were inconsistent results regarding the relationship of the 6MWT with other clinical outcomes. Few studies have examined the relationship between the cardiopulmonary exercise test or the short physical performance battery and clinical outcomes, although some studies have shown relationship with survival posttransplant and quality of life. Few studies examined the relationship between the tests of interest and healthcare utilization' and the results were inconsistent. Conclusions: Except for the relationship between the 6MWT and mortality on the waiting list, there is limited evidence regarding the relationship of performance-based measures of exercise capacity, frailty, and physical function with clinical outcomes or healthcare utilization.
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 | 0.011 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".