Eight months of physical training in warm water improves physical and mental health in women with fibromyalgia: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of 8 months of supervised exercise therapy in warm water and its effects on the impact of fibromyalgia on physical and mental health and physical fitness in affected women. METHODS: Thirty women with fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to an exercise therapy group (n = 15) or a control group (inactive) (n = 15). The impact of fibromyalgia on physical and mental health was assessed using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and the anxiety state with State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Physical fitness was measured using the following tests: Canadian Aerobic Fitness; hand-grip dynamometry; 10-metre walking; 10-step stair-climbing and blind 1-leg stance. RESULTS: After 8 months of training, the exercise therapy group improved compared with the control group in terms of physical function (20%), pain (8%), stiffness (53%), anxiety (41%), depression (27%), Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total scores (18%), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score (22%), aerobic capacity (22%), balance (30%), functional capacity for walking (6%), stair-climbing with no extra weight (14%) and stair-climbing 10 kg-weighted (25%). CONCLUSION: Eight months of supervised exercise in warm water was feasible and led to long-term improvements in physical and mental health in patients with fibromyalgia at a similar magnitude to those of shorter therapy programmes.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, 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".