Physical activity in the prevention and management of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This study aimed to assess the potential role of physical activity (PA) in reducing the risk of developing inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and in their management. Subject and methods A systematic review of literature was conducted up to October 2023 using the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Observational studies, semi-experimental and experimental studies reporting PA effects were considered eligible. Data on disease status and PA characteristics, main outcomes and possible confounders were collected in a database. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Results Of the 29 articles included, six investigated PA and risk of IBDs and four of them showed an inverse relationship. Among the others, seven reported positive effects of PA on IBD symptoms, while all showed improvements in comorbidities, complications and quality of life. Conclusion PA seems to be effective in preventing or treating IBDs and their complications. Owing to the low quality of the majority of the studies and their heterogeneity, further research is needed to better understand which type and level of PA may be useful in the prevention and treatment of these diseases.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".