The impact of high intensity training and sports on recipients of solid organ transplants: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: High intensity exercise in individuals post solid organ transplant (SOT) remains a largely understudied phenomenon, with potential risks and benefits. Additionally, the optimal training protocols are still unclear. This narrative review aimed to explore the impact of high-intensity exercise training and strenuous sports on solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Methods: We conducted a narrative review of intervention studies of any design that included high-intensity exercise training and cross-sectional studies of strenuous sports and activities. Additionally, we reviewed individual reports documenting post-SOT performance at highly competitive or physiological levels. We used MEDLINE to search for relevant articles followed by a manual search for additional articles. Data were extracted and results were summarized. Results: High-intensity and strenuous exercise appears to be safe among stable SOTRs. High-intensity protocols consistently demonstrated improvements in VO2peak and a reduction in coronary artery disease prevalence, though findings related to body composition, health-related quality of life outcomes, and cardiovascular exercise variables were inconsistent. Pre-transplant athletes showcase notable achievements and physiological adaptations post-transplantation, highlighting the capacity for athletic performance among this population. However, caution is warranted in interpreting the findings from these studies due to limitations in generalizability and other methodological limitations. Conclusion: As evidenced by current literature, high intensity exercise emerges as a promising exercise method for safely improving various physiological parameters, and reducing the prevalence of coronary heart disease in SOTRs. It can induce similar or greater effects to moderate intensity exercise, however follow-up studies indicate low retention. Further research of higher methodological rigor is warranted in this field to advance understanding, and to guide evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".