A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled, Parallel Assignment Study of Exercise Versus Education as Adjuvant in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some forms of chronic pain are receptive to exercise therapy for maintenance of pain relief. We evaluated the impact of a balanced exercise program in the management of human peripheral neuropathic pain compared with an educational intervention. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, single-blind, controlled study using an intention-to-treat protocol. Patients with confirmed neuropathic pain and a pain score ≥4 (0 to 10 scale) on visual analog scale (VAS) continued their regular pain therapies and were randomized to 6 months of either a balanced exercise program or an educational program. VAS for pain severity was the primary outcome variable. Characteristics of pain, function, mood, anxiety, sleep, and quality of life along with Single Stage Treadmill Walking Test calculating maximal oxygen consumption (VO2) formed the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were screened and 54 participated, with 28 randomized to exercise and 26 randomized to education. A total of 19 (68%) and 20 patients (77%) completed exercise and education, respectively. VAS scores improved 17% for the exercise group as compared with 9% for the education group (P=0.08). The only secondary outcome measure demonstrating improvement was VO2, which improved in exercise participants (25.6±4.5 mL/kg/min at baseline vs. 28.9±3.8 mL/kg/min at 6 mo). DISCUSSION: A balanced exercise program was beneficial for exercise capacity, but produced only a medium-sized effect without statistical significance. A small sample size and unexpectedly high dropout rates may have limited our ability to demonstrate statistically significant improvement in pain relief.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".