The Potential Benefits of Exercise in Managing Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience a significant decline in quality of life due to various symptoms. Exercise has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to improve IBD management, but its effectiveness requires further investigation. This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, explored the effects of exercise on IBD progression and its potential as a treatment in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across three databases and two registries from May 12, 2024, to May 22, 2024. Methodological rigor and potential bias were minimized through quality assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for studies evaluating the effectiveness of non-randomized interventions. This process yielded 12 high-quality studies for analysis. The review identified positive evidence from both RCTs and observational studies. Exercise interventions demonstrated improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, disease activity, quality of life, and mental health in adults with IBD. Studies explored various modalities, including aerobic exercise, resistance training, and mind-body interventions. However, further research is needed to optimize exercise prescription and elucidate the underlying mechanisms of action. This review strengthens the evidence for exercise as a beneficial intervention for IBD patients. Personalized exercise programs based on individual needs hold promise for improved IBD management and patient outcomes. However, limitations exist due to study design variations and the need for long-term follow-up studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".