MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336446211

Adherence during an individualized home based 12-week exercise program in women with fibromyalgia.

2006· article· en· W2336446211 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia L. Dobkin, Deborah Da Costa, Michał Abrahamowicz, Maria Dritsa, Roxane du Berger, Mary‐Ann Fitzcharles, Ilka Lowensteyn

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibromyalgiaPhysical therapyAerobic exercisePhysical exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include regular physical exercise. In this prospective study we examined predictors for adherence to stretching and aerobic exercises in women provided with an individualized home based program. METHODS: Thirty-nine women kept exercise diaries for 12 weeks. RESULTS: For both types of exercise, women who were less physically fit at baseline engaged in more exercise during the program. Yet for stretching, more lower body pain at baseline predicted engaging in less stretching exercise over time, whereas for aerobic exercise, more baseline upper body pain predicted more exercise over time. As time passed, participants with higher baseline physical fitness and/or older age were reducing their aerobic exercise practice at significantly faster rates, as were those women with higher baseline stress. CONCLUSION: Given that adequate levels of adherence were limited to about half of the participants for both types of exercise, steps to reduce barriers to exercise (e.g., stress) need to be taken when prescribing exercise in the treatment of FM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207