Effects of Aerobic Training in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of aerobic exercise in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Seventy patients classified with AS by the modified New York criteria were included. The patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups. The intervention group (IG) performed 50 min of walking followed by stretching exercises 3 times a week for 12 weeks. The control group (CG) performed only stretching exercises. The outcome measurements were the Bath indexes [Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI), Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and Bath AS Metrology Index (BASMI)], Health Assessment Questionnaire for the Spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S), AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), the 6-min walk test (6MWT), chest expansion, and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36. Aerobic capacity was assessed by ergospirometry on a treadmill. Routine laboratory techniques were used in determining lipid levels. Assessments were performed immediately before randomization and after 6, 12, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were randomized to the IG and 35 to the CG. There was significant improvement in the BASFI, HAQ-S, BASMI, BASDAI, and ASDAS in both groups (p < 0.05), but did not differ between groups. There was a significant increase in the walking distance in the 6MWT in the IG compared with CG (p < 0.001). The IG showed significant improvement in cardiopulmonary capacity compared with CG. Cholesterol and triglyceride levels did not change in either group. CONCLUSION: In patients with AS, aerobic training improved walking distance and aerobic capacity. Aerobic training did not provide additional benefits in functional capacity, mobility, disease activity, quality of life, and lipid levels when compared with stretching exercises alone.
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".