Physical activity : do patients infected with HIV practice? How much? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have suggested that aerobic physical activity is safe and beneficial for HIV-infected adults. However, there is information lacking regarding whether HIV-infected patients practice physical activity and to what extent. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of physical activity, sedentary lifestyle or lack of physical activity in non-experimental conditions performed by HIV-infected subjects. The electronic search was conducted using Medline and EMBASE bibliographic databases and the platforms of Bireme, Ovid, Science Direct, High Wire and SCIELO from January 1990 to July 2011. Original observational studies were included. Of the 2,838 articles found, 48 met the inclusion criteria. Following data extraction and after reading the manuscripts, 24 were selected for systematic review. Of the 24 studies, most were cross-sectional studies. The average quality score using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was 2.8±1.5. The diversity of methods used to assess physical activity precluded the calculated summary estimate of prevalence. The percentage of sedentary lifestyle was determined in 13 articles which conducted studies on HIV-infected individuals. The percentage of sedentary lifestyle or physical inactivity ranged from 19% to 73%, with the level determined by different methods. In conclusion, there are few well-designed studies with adequate sample size to represent the population of HIV-infected individuals. A pooled estimate could not be calculated due to the differences in physical activity measurements and definitions of physically active and non-active HIV-infected individuals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".