A health professional's guide to exercise prescription for people with arthritis: A review of aerobic fitness activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inactivity and subsequent cardiovascular and musculoskeletal deconditioning superimposed on the numerous impairments associated with arthritis play a significant role in patients’ overall functional status and quality of life (1–8). Research in the past 25 years has revealed not only that people with most forms of arthritis are less fit than their nonaffected, ageand sex-matched peers, but that they, like most other adults, can safely benefit from aerobic exercise activities (4–6). Regular, aerobic exercise provides both short-term and long-term benefits for people with arthritis and related musculoskeletal conditions. These positive changes include improved cardiovascular function (8–10), increased muscular strength and flexibility (8–11), decreased depression and anxiety (3), reduced fatigue (12), improved physical and social activity levels (6,13,14), and decreased or unchanged disease activity and pain (14). In addition, there is no long-term increase in the rate of joint damage (10,15,16), and both hospitalization and work disability are lessened (10,17). Whether there are differential effects of exercise modes on these arthritis symptoms and impairments is an important question that will be addressed in this paper (18).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.023 |
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".