ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Inter-Individual Heterogeneity in Aerobic Training Adaptations: Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Personalized Exercise Prescription.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aerobic Exercise Response Variation and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Adults with Coronary Heart Disease: An SDir Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Toward Precision Cardiac Rehabilitation: Current Limitations and Future Opportunities of Omics and Artificial Intelligence.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Beyond Static Assessment: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Functional Data Analysis for Assessing Physiological Responses to High-Intensity Effort.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity among exercise participants: latent profile analysis and differential persistence pathways based on the pressure-support-motivation (PSM) framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalized exercise prescriptions require identifying inter-individual differences in exercise intervention effects. This review examined whether true inter-individual differences exist after accounting for measurement error. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included: (1) original randomized controlled trials or controlled trials using standardized, supervised aerobic exercise interventions, or meta-analyses examining inter-individual differences in aerobic training adaptations; (2) explicitly identifying the assessment of inter-individual response variability as a research objective; (3) Reporting sufficient statistical information to quantify inter-individual variability. The search yielded a total of 3203 studies, and ultimately 78 studies were included for systematic review. Main findings included: (1) Few studies appropriately considered random measurement error and within-individual variability when quantifying inter-individual differences. (2) Analysis of both primary studies and existing meta-analyses revealed a consistent lack of statistical evidence for true inter-individual differences. (3) Observed inter-individual variability was primarily attributed to uncontrolled measurement error or within-individual variability, not true individual response differences. The evidence analyzed in this systematic review indicates that there is insufficient support for true inter-individual differences in the effects of aerobic exercise training intervention. Given physiological complexity and methodological limitations, any conclusions on exercise intervention heterogeneity or individual responsiveness require caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.