Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Exercise was established as an integral part of the nonpharmacological treatment of fibromyalgia approximately 20 years ago. Since then many studies have investigated the effects of exercise-either alone or in combination with other interventions. This review will discuss the benefits of exercise alone and provide practical suggestions on how patients can exercise without causing a long-term exacerbation of their pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Short-term exercise programs for individuals with fibromyalgia have consistently improved physical function, especially physical fitness, and reduced tenderpoint pain. Exercise has also produced improvements in self-efficacy. These effects can persist for periods of up to 2 years but may require participants to continue to exercise. Most exercise studies have examined the effects of moderately intense aerobic exercise. Only in the past 2 years have muscle-strengthening programs, in isolation, been evaluated. To be well tolerated, exercise programs must start at a level just below the capacity of the participants and then progress slowly. Even with these precautions, exercise may still produce tolerable, short-term increases in pain and fatigue that should abate within the first few weeks of exercising. SUMMARY: Future studies should investigate the possible benefits of low-intensity exercise and test strategies that may enhance long-term compliance with exercise. Individuals with fibromyalgia also need to be able to access community exercise programs that are appropriate for them. This may require community instructors to receive instruction on exercise prescription and progression for individuals with fibromyalgia.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".