Effect of physical exercise on the functional capacity of patients with liver cirrhosis: systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we verify the effect of physical exercise on the functional capacity of people diagnosed with liver cirrhosis (LC). Inclusion criteria were people with LC, at any stage of the disease, over 18 years of age, of either sex, who performed any type of physical exercise in comparison with any other intervention or no intervention, obtaining functional capacity as the outcome, of the controlled and randomized experimental studies. The search for articles was carried out in 11 databases. The descriptors considered for the search were physical exercise, functional capacity, LC, and their synonyms. Methodological quality and study bias were assessed using the Jadad scale and the risk of bias 2 scale, respectively. Review Manager 5.4 was used for the meta-analysis of the data. Functional capacity was considered a continuous variable. The difference in standardized means was considered as the effect measure. The random effect analysis model was used. The confidence level adopted was 0.05. The level of evidence of the meta-analysis result was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The 113 participants with LC, who belonged to the physical exercise group, had a standardized mean difference in functional capacity of 0.57 (0.01–1.13); p = 0.05, more than the 107 participants who were in the control situation. The level of evidence from the meta-analysis assessed through the GRADE was considered moderate. Physical exercise caused a significant increase of moderate clinical relevance in the functional capacity of patients diagnosed with LC.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".