Increased Body Mass Index in Ankylosing Spondylitis Is Associated with Greater Burden of Symptoms and Poor Perceptions of the Benefits of Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increased body mass index (BMI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is associated with a greater burden of symptoms and poor perceptions of the benefits of exercise. In AS, the effect of obesity on disease characteristics and exercise perceptions is unknown. We evaluated the prevalence of obesity in AS, to assess the attitudes of patients toward exercise and to evaluate the effect of obesity on symptoms and disease activity. METHODS: Demographic data and disease characteristics were collected from 46 patients with AS. Disease activity, symptomatology, and functional disability were examined using standard AS questionnaires. BMI was calculated. Comorbidity was analyzed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients' attitudes toward exercise were assessed using the Exercise Benefits and Barriers Scale (EBBS). We compared the disease characteristics, perceptions regarding exercise, and functional limitations in those who were overweight to those who had a normal BMI. RESULTS: The mean BMI in the group was 27.4; 67.5% of subjects were overweight or obese. There was a statistically significant difference between those who were overweight and those with a normal BMI regarding their perceptions of exercise (EBBS 124.7 vs 136.6, respectively), functional limitation (Bath AS Functional Index 4.7 vs 2.5, Health Assessment Questionnaire 0.88 vs 0.26), and disease activity (Bath AS Disease Activity Index 4.8 vs 2.9). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their comorbid conditions or other demographic variables. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients in this AS cohort were overweight. They had a greater burden of symptoms, worse perceptions regarding the benefits of exercise, and enhanced awareness of their barriers to exercising. This is of particular concern in a disease where exercise plays a crucial role.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".