Measuring exercise‐induced mood changes in fibromyalgia: A comparison of several measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare scales measuring exercise-induced changes in mood. METHODS: Mood changes in a randomized, 23-week controlled trial of exercise were assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and the Mental Health Inventory (MHI). Effect sizes and t-tests were computed on 23-week change scores. Scales were deemed to be confounded if items addressed sleep disturbances, fatigue, or effort (symptoms of both mood disturbances and fibromyalgia). RESULTS: Efficacy (15 exercise subjects) and intent-to-treat analyses (27 exercise subjects) generated medium effects for BDI (total, cognitive), MHI depression (efficacy only), and CES-D (intent-to-treat only) scales. BDI (total, cognitive), MHI (depression, positive affect, total [MHI-5]), and STAI scales distinguished exercise from control subjects at 23 weeks in all analyses. BDI somatic and CES-D scales were deemed to be confounded. CONCLUSION: We recommend the BDI cognitive, STAI, and MHI-5 scales to measure depression, anxiety, and general mood, respectively, in patients 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
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".