PRO-FIT-CARE study: the feasibility assessment of a pilot online exercise intervention for persons living with obesity and female infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Moderate-to-high physical activity participation is associated with a reduced risk of infertility. Yet, exercise interventions that target cardiorespiratory fitness, independent of weight loss, are lacking in obesity and female fertility research. Purpose: The primary objective of the PRO-FIT-CARE (PROmoting FITness for CArdiometabolic & REproductive Health) study was to assess the feasibility of a moderate-to-high-intensity online exercise program for persons with obesity and female infertility. Methods: Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and efficacy were assessed by examining: (1) recruitment and consent rate, (2) study retention, (3) adverse events, (4) participant satisfaction, (5) adherence, and (6) cardiorespiratory fitness. Results: Eleven of thirty-two women contacted agreed to participate in the program (34.4% consent rate). Eight participants (72.7%) completed the study. One musculoskeletal injury was reported. There was a 30% adherence rate based on prescribed exercise intensity (60%-80% of heart rate maximum). One of eleven participants attended 80% of the exercise intervention. Based on a weekly satisfaction survey, the program had an overall high level of satisfaction. Compared to sex and age normative data, post-intervention, two of eight participants improved their cardiorespiratory fitness percentile rank. Conclusion: The study highlights challenges with adherence to an online exercise program. While the program was safe and participants reported high levels of program satisfaction, approaches to improve adherence must be incorporated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".