Symptom and gait changes after sensory attention focused exercise vs aerobic training in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study compared lower-limb aerobic training and sensory attention focused exercise (PD SAFEx) to a non-exercise control group with the overall objective of determining which strategy would have a greater benefit for Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms and gait. PD SAFEx was developed to focus on sensorimotor deficits identified in PD with the aim of increasing sensory feedback and body awareness, while the lower-limb aerobic training utilized a specially designed semi-recumbent elliptical device. Intervention groups (PD SAFEx, n = 18; aerobic, n = 13) exercised three times/week for 10-12 weeks, while nonexercise control participants (n = 15) maintained their regular activity level for 12 weeks. Outcome measures included the Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale motor section (UPDRS) administered by a blinded clinician; a posture and gait (PG) score (total of UPDRS items 27-31); the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG); and spatiotemporal aspects of self-paced gait. PD SAFEx resulted in an improved UPDRS, PG score, and TUG (reached significance when participants with poor attendance were excluded) but not self-paced gait. The lower-limb aerobic training led to increased step length and velocity but had no change to disease severity. Since gait improvements were not combined with symptomatic changes, lower-limb aerobic exercise may not be optimal for individuals with PD. Conversely, sensory-based exercise (PD SAFEx) was beneficial, and led to improvement in symptoms and functional movement control.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".