Exercise in Ankylosing Spondylitis: Discrepancies Between Recommendations and Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the type and extent of exercise used by an ankylosing spondylitis (AS) cohort and to examine patients' perceptions of exercise. Recommendations for the management of AS identify exercise as the cornerstone of comprehensive management. METHODS: An exercise inventory questionnaire and the Exercise Benefits and Barriers Scale (EBBS) were administered to patients attending the AS clinic of a large teaching hospital. Benefits and barriers subscales of the EBBS were analyzed to identify the perceived benefits of, and barriers to, exercise. Higher benefits scores (range 29-116) indicate a more positive perception of exercise. Higher barriers scores (range 14-56) indicate a greater perception of barriers to exercise. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with AS completed the questionnaires. Mean age was 38.0 years, and mean disease duration was 14.7 years. Walking (3 times/week) and stretching (3 times/week) were the most commonly reported types of exercise and were reported in 35.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The mean benefits EBBS score was 87.1 +/- 12.5. The most frequently reported benefits of exercise were that it "increases my level of physical fitness" (96.4%) and "improves functioning of my cardiovascular system" (96.4%). The mean barriers EBBS score was 29.2 +/- 5.3, and the most frequently reported barrier to exercise was that it "tires me" (71.4%). CONCLUSION: Patients with AS perceive the benefits of exercise, with average EBBS benefits scores comparable to historical controls with similar conditions. Despite positive perceptions, the majority of patients with AS did not report participating in exercise on a frequent basis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".