Immunological Response to Exercise in Athletes with Disabilities: A Narrative Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a person with a disability, participating in sports activities and/or competitions can be a challenge for the immune system. The relationship between exercise and immunity response in disabled athletes is, indeed, extremely complex for several reasons, including (1) the chronic low-grade inflammatory and immunodepression-"secondary immune deficiency"-state imposed by the disability/impairment; (2) the impact of the disability on an array of variables, spanning from physical fitness to well-being, quality of life, sleep, and nutritional aspects, among others, which are known to mediate/modulate the effects of exercise on human health; (3) the variability of the parameters related to the exercise/physical activity (modality, frequency, intensity, duration, training versus competition, etc.); and (4) the intra- and inter-individual variability of the immunological response to exercise. In able-bodied athletes, previously published data described several exercise-induced changes affecting various immunological subsets and subpopulations, ranging from neutrophils to lymphocytes, and monocytes. Broadly, moderate intensity workout is accompanied by optimal immunity and resistance to infections such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) in athletes. Periods of intense training with insufficient recovery can cause a temporary state of immunosuppression, which should end with a few days of rest/recovery from exercise. Disabled athletes are relatively overlooked and understudied with respect to their able-bodied counterparts. Findings from the few studies available on paralympic and disabled athletes are here summarized and analyzed utilizing a narrative approach to review and determine the major features of the immunological and inflammatory responses to exercise in this specific population. Moreover, a few studies have reported behavioral, dietary, and training strategies that can be adopted to limit exercise-induced immunosuppression and reduce the risk of infection in people with disabilities. However, given the paucity of data and contrasting findings, future high-quality investigations on paralympic and disabled athletes are urgently needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".