Pilot Study: Access to Fitness Facility and Exercise Levels in Olanzapine-Treated Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly alarmed by the health risks (that is, weight gain, elevated lipids, and poor glucose tolerance) posed by novel antipsychotic medications, clinicians who treat schizophrenia are attempting to help patients improve lifestyle factors. Unfortunately, schizophrenia research has neglected exercise as a legitimate adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which stable patients with schizophrenia would adhere to an exercise program if offered access to a fitness facility. METHODS: Ten of 20 stable patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were treated with olanzapine for at least 4 weeks had the opportunity to receive access to a Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) fitness facility, based on random allocation. The intervention included a free membership to the YMCA for 6 months, with access to all the fitness amenities and equipment. The mean dosage of olanzapine was 11.5 mg daily for the YMCA group. RESULTS: Of the 10 subjects, 2 did not attend at all. One subject met criteria for full attendance for each of the 6 months and lost 15 Kg. Dropout rates were as follows: 90% at 6 months, 70% at 5 months, and 40% at 4 months. The main reason they gave for poor attendance was lack of motivation. The mean weight gain was 2 kg in the YMCA group. CONCLUSION: Most subjects did not regularly exercise or attend. They cited poor motivation as the main reason. The subject who exercised regularly lost a significant amount of weight.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".