Physical activity in liver transplant recipients: a large multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Healthy lifestyle and appropriate diet are of critical importance after liver transplant (LT). We provided an analysis of the main patterns of physical activity and found factors associated with physical activity itself. METHODS: Clinically stable LT recipients were enrolled between June and September 2021. Patients completed a composite questionnaire about physical activity, adherence to Mediterranean Diet (MD), quality of life (QoL), and employment. Correlations were analysed using the Pearson coefficients while different subgroups were compared by t-test for independent samples or ANOVAs. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to find predictors of inactivity. RESULTS: We enrolled 511 subjects (71% males, mean age 63 ± 10.8 years). One hundred and ninety-three patients reported high level of physical activity, 197 a minimal activity and 121 declared insufficient activity. Among these latter, 29 subjects were totally inactive. Considering the 482 LT recipients performing some kind of physical activity, almost all reported a low-quality, non-structured activity. At multivariate analysis, time from LT (odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, p = 0.017), sedentary lifestyle (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.19-0.81, p = 0.012), low adherence to MD (odds ratio 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, p = 0.049), and low level of QoL (physical dimension) (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.17, p < 0.001), were independently associated with total inactivity. CONCLUSION: A large portion of LT recipients report an insufficient level of physical activity or are wholly inactive. Inactivity increases with time from LT and was strongly associated with suboptimal diet and low QoL.
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 | 0.000 | 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".