Effects of Two Low‐Frequency Intradialytic Cycling Training Programs on Functional Capacity in Subjects Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity deteriorates over time in patients on hemodialysis, which is associated with increased mortality risk. This study aimed to assess the effects of two low-frequency (i.e., twice weekly) intradialytic cycling exercise training programs-low- to moderate-intensity continuous training (L-MICT) versus moderate- to high-intensity interval training (M-HIIT) - on functional capacity in patients undergoing hemodialysis. METHODS: Sixty-seven out of sixty-nine patients undergoing hemodialysis of both sexes (44 men and 23 women), aged 35-55 years, completed this study. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: L-MICT group (n = 23), M-HIIT group (n = 21), and nonexercise control group (n = 23). Patients in the L-MICT group performed intradialytic cycling exercise continuously at a low-to moderate-intensity for 20-30 min. Patients in the M-HIIT group performed 3 × 3-min moderate- to high-intensity cycling exercise, separated by 4-min low-intensity active breaks. The intradialytic cycling programs were scheduled twice a week for 8 weeks. The outcome measure was the functional capacity assessed by the 6-min walk test (6MWT). FINDINGS: The 6-min walk distance (6MWD) increased significantly in the L-MICT group [p = 0.004, the change score (Δ) = 18.2 meters (m)], in the M-HIIT group (p = 0.001, Δ = 17.6 m), and in the control group (p = 0.014, Δ = 11.4 m) compared to baseline. However, no significant differences were found between groups. DISCUSSION: Low-frequency intradialytic cycling training programs, either L-MICT or M-HIIT, twice a week for 8 weeks, could similarly induce statistically significant improvements in the 6MWD in people receiving hemodialysis. Nevertheless, the 6MWD changes did not exceed the minimally detectable change previously reported in this population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".