Effects of Pilates Exercises on Shoulder Range of Motion, Pain, Mood, and Upper-Extremity Function in Women Living With Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Pilates exercises on shoulder range of motion (ROM), pain, mood, and upper-extremity (UE) function in women who had been treated for breast cancer. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 4 women who had undergone axillary dissection and radiation therapy for stage I to IV breast cancer. METHODS: A nonconcurrent, multiple-baseline, single-subject research design was used to examine the effects of Pilates exercises on the 4 outcomes. RESULTS: Visual analyses of the data suggest a modest effect of the Pilates exercise program in improving shoulder abduction and external rotation ROM. Statistically significant improvement in shoulder internal and external rotation in the affected UE was shown for the one participant with pre-existing metastatic disease. The improving baselines seen for pain, mood, and UE function data made it impossible to assess the effects of Pilates exercises on those outcomes. No adverse events were experienced. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Pilates exercises may be an effective and safe exercise option for women who are recovering from breast cancer treatments; however, further research is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".