Efficacy of Incentive Spirometer Exercise on Pulmonary Functions of Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis Stabilized by Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of combining incentive spirometer exercise (ISE) with a conventional exercise (CE) on patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) stabilized by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy by comparing a combination group with a CE-alone group. METHODS: Forty-six patients (44 men, 2 women) were randomized to the combination group (ISE plus CE; n=23) or the CE group (n=23). The CE regimen of both groups consisted of 20 exercises performed for 30 min once a day. The ISE was performed once a day for 30 min. The trial duration was 16 weeks. Patients were assessed before and at the end of treatment by measuring the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), chest expansion, finger to floor distance, pulmonary function measures, and 6-min walk distance. RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly in terms of chest expansion (p<0.01), finger to floor distance (p<0.01), and BASFI (p<0.05) after completing the exercise program. However, only the combination group showed significant improvements in the forced vital capacity (p<0.05), total lung capacity (p<0.01), and vital capacity (p<0.05). Although this did not achieve statistical significance, the combination group was mildly superior to the CE-alone group in functional disability and pulmonary function measures. CONCLUSION: Combining ISE with a CE can provide positive results in patients whose AS has been clinically stabilized by TNF inhibitor therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".