Evidence mapPaperPMID 41465870Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Inter-Individual Heterogeneity in Aerobic Training Adaptations: Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Personalized Exercise Prescription.

Haili Xiao, Jianchang Ren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Haili XiaoInstitute of Sport and Health, Lingnan Normal University, Zhanjiang 524037, China.
Jianchang RenInstitute of Sport and Health, Lingnan Normal University, Zhanjiang 524037, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4699-500X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

aerobic training adaptationsinterindividual variabilitypersonalized exercise prescriptiontrainability

Identifiers

PMID41465870
PMCPMC12734763

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.