Response variability to exercise (REVISE): Study rationale, design and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response, leading health authorities worldwide recommend that all adults accumulate 150 min/wk of moderate to-vigorous physical activity. However, we and others have demonstrated an extraordinary inter-individual variability in CRF response to standardized exercise wherein a substantial number of adults may not improve CRF beyond day-to-day variability. Whether CRF response to first line therapy is a permanent feature of the individual or can be altered by increasing exercise dose is unknown. We will perform a single-centre, two-phased, randomized controlled trial. In Phase I we will randomly assign previously inactive, adult men and women between 25 and 65 years in a 1:9 ratio to a no-exercise wait-list control, or a low amount, low intensity (∼150 min/wk) group for 16 weeks. In Phase II (16 weeks), participants randomized to exercise in phase I will be re-randomized to 1 of 3 exercise groups: 1) the same low amount, low intensity; 2) low amount, high intensity, or 3) high amount, high intensity. The primary outcome is CRF. Our primary question is, after 16 weeks of ∼150 min/wk of moderate intensity exercise, does increasing exercise intensity or exercise amount for an additional 16 weeks improve CRF differently depending on the response to exercise during the first 16 weeks? The findings will provide first evidence and immense opportunity for development of a more personalized approach to exercise that recognizes individual response variability. Trial registration: clinicaltrials. gov identifier: NCT05496751.
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 | 0.060 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".