Survey of exercise testing and training in cystic fibrosis clinics in the UK: a decade of progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Regular exercise testing is recommended for people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF), as is the provision and regular review of exercise training programmes. A previous survey on exercise testing and training for pwCF in the UK was conducted over a decade ago. With the landscape of CF changing considerably during this time, this survey aimed to evaluate UK-based exercise testing and training practices for pwCF a decade on. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: A survey was distributed electronically to UK CF clinics and completed by the individual primarily responsible for exercise services. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: In total, 31 CF centres participated, representing ~50% of UK specialist clinics. Of these, 94% reported using exercise testing, 48% of which primarily use cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Exercise testing mostly occurs at annual review (93%) and is most often conducted by physiotherapists (62%). A wide variation in protocols, exercise modalities, normative reference values and cut-offs for exercise-induced desaturation are currently used. All centres reportedly discuss exercise training with pwCF; 94% at every clinic appointment. However, only 52% of centres reportedly use exercise testing to inform individualised exercise training. Physiotherapists typically lead discussions around exercise training (74%). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the majority of respondent centres in the UK now offer some exercise testing and training advice for pwCF, representing a marked improvement over the past decade. However, continued efforts are now needed to standardise exercise practices, particularly regarding field testing practices and the translation of test results into personalised training programmes for pwCF.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".