Participation and Progression of Hybrid Rehabilitation following Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise training is recommended to improve physical recovery following lung transplantation (LTx). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, hybrid rehabilitation has emerged utilizing both in-person and home-based exercise. Little is known about exercise participation, progression and intensity with this delivery model. METHODS: A single center retrospective chart review of adult LTx recipients who undertook outpatient rehabilitation within the first 3 months after LTx between December 1, 2022 and February 29, 2024, was conducted. High participation was defined as ≥3 exercise sessions/week for at least 50% of the rehabilitation period. Progression of exercise volumes was examined and walking intensity (Borg leg fatigue scale) was compared between in-person and home rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 166 LTx recipients were included (70% male, 64 [14] years, 71% interstitial lung disease). High rehabilitation participation was observed in 48% of participants over a mean of 8 ± 2 weeks. The median walking distance, biceps and quadriceps resistance training volumes increased between the first and last recorded rehabilitation sessions during both in-person (536 [538] vs. 1073 [650] m, 40 [20] vs. 60 [55] repxlbs, and 20 [10] vs. 40 [30] repxlbs) and home rehabilitation (968 [991] vs. 1556 [1019] m, 50 [70] vs. 100 [70] repxlbs, and 30 [32] vs. 40 [70] repxlbs), all p < 0.05. Leg fatigue was higher during in-person walking compared to home (3 [3-4] vs. 3 [2-3]), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Half of LTx recipients had low participation in outpatient and home rehabilitation early after transplantation. Understanding barriers to home exercise participation and reporting will enhance hybrid rehabilitation delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".