Exercise training in solid organ transplant candidates and recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Exercise training programs are an integral part of the management of solid organ transplantation (SOT) candidates and recipients. Despite this, they are not widely available and specific guidelines on exercise parameters for each type of organ are not currently provided. A review of this topic could help clinicians to prescribe appropriate exercise regimens for their patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In this narrative review, we discuss the physical impairments of SOT candidates and recipients and how these affect their physical function and transplant outcomes. We examine recent systematic reviews, statements, and randomized controlled trials on exercise training in SOT candidates and recipients and present the current available evidence while providing some practical recommendations for clinicians based on the frequency, intensity, time, and type principle. SUMMARY: While randomized controlled trials of better methodology quality are needed to strengthen the evidence for the effects of exercise training and for the optimal training characteristics, the available evidence points to beneficial effects of many different types of exercise. The current evidence can provide some guidance for clinicians on the prescription of exercise training for transplant candidates and recipients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".