Martial arts practice in community-based rehabilitation: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Martial arts are forms of self-defence or attack that have been modified for modern sport and exercise, and are reported to provide health benefits for people who practise them. This article discusses the evidence base for the use of martial arts, such as tai chi, karate and taekwondo, in the rehabilitation process and how they may play a role in community-based rehabilitation. Findings: Tai chi is a low-impact form of exercise that can help to: reduce the risk of falls among community-dwelling stroke survivors; lower blood pressure in patients with heart failure; and improve the wellbeing of breast cancer survivors. Karate is a more rigorous form of martial arts than tai chi and research has highlighted its benefits for children, including: improved memory and self-esteem for those with epilepsy; reduced stereotypy among children with autism; and improved developmental skills among schoolchildren with and without special needs. Taekwondo is another rigorous martial art form that has potential health benefits; limited research has been conducted into this, with a study reporting improvements in class behaviour and academic performance among children who practise it. Conclusions: While each martial art form has its own positive health benefits, future research must be undertaken to compare the effectiveness of different martial art forms in different communities.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".