The Effects of Aerobic Exercise Training on Psychosocial Aspects of Men with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study was conducted to examine the effects of aerobic exercise training on psychosocial aspects (mental health, the aspects of physical symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social functioning, and depression) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: 53 men who had type 2 diabetes mellitus for a mean duration of the disease for 3±5 years were selected purposely and classified randomly into experimental (27 patients) and a control group (26 patients). Patients in the experimental group did aerobic exercise training three times a week for eight weeks. The exercise included an aerobic activity for 45 to 60 minutes during which the patients' heart rates were maintained at 60-70 percent of heart rate reserve on ergo meter bikes. RESULTS: The eight-week aerobic exercise training had significant effects on mental health (p = 0.002), subscales of physical symptoms (p = 0.006), and anxiety and insomnia (p = 0.001). It had no significant effects on subscales related to disorder of social functioning (p = 0.117) and depression (p = 0.657). CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise training can be considered as an appropriate program for improving the health of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and it also can improve their mental health.
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) | 0.002 | 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".