Comparison of the effects of a self‐supervised home exercise program with a physiotherapist‐supervised exercise program on the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of a self-supervised home exercise program and a physiotherapist-supervised exercise program on motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients were compared in a prospective single-blinded clinical trial. Nineteen subjects (6 women, 13 men; mean age, 65 +/- 8 years) with Hoehn and Yahr Stages 2 to 3 were recruited. Subjects were self-selected into an 8-week exercise program that was self-supervised (HOME group) or physiotherapist-supervised (PT group). The primary outcome measurement was the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Motor subsection score (UPDRSm). The secondary outcome measurements were the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, UPDRS Total score, and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 8 and 16 weeks after the start of the study. The investigators were blinded to the subject treatment group. Bonferroni-corrected paired Student's t test was used to evaluate the change in the UPDRSm from baseline to 8 weeks. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the change in the secondary outcome measurements from baseline to 8 weeks. There was statistically significant and equal decrease in the UPDRSm from baseline to 8 weeks in both treatment groups. There was no difference in the 95% CI in the change of the secondary outcome measurements. A self-supervised exercise program was found to have similar effectiveness as a physiotherapist-supervised exercise program in improving motor symptoms in PD patients. This finding is important in the counseling of PD patients regarding adjunctive treatment of motor symptoms of PD with exercise.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".