An examination of the mechanisms of exercise-induced change in psychological well-being among people with spinal cord injury
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI), regular exercise training leads to significant improvements in pain, stress, and depression. The mechanisms by which exercise effects change in these variables are poorly understood. To address this issue, we examined the mediated effects of exercise on the psychological well-being of individuals with SCI according to the relationships described in the Chronic Pain Process Model. Twenty-one individuals with traumatic SCI either participated in a 9-month, twice-weekly exercise program (n = 11), or participated as nonexercising controls (n = 10). Measures of pain, stress, and depression were administered at the baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months into the intervention. Change in pain mediated exercise-induced change in stress, F(4,17) = 7.72, p < 0.01. Change in stress mediated exercise-induced change in depression, F(4,17) = 7.68, p < 0.01. With the identification of these factors as mediators of exercise-related changes in pain and well-being, exercise interventions can be designed that specifically target these mediators and possibly maximize intervention efficacy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it