Is that the sound of a drill? Sweating for the right reasons: Testing the effect of an acute bout of exercise on dental anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental anxiety is a severe and irrational response to dental treatment (DSM IV, 2000). Up to 75% of adults have some form of anxiety in response to dental treatment (Singg & Belk, 2007), and 25% will avoid dental treatment until their pain outweighs their fear (Corah, 1988). While a number of treatments have been used to reduce dental anxiety, one that has not been examined is exercise. This is surprising given that exercise is a widely used treatment for anxiety reduction across settings (Landers & Petruzzello, 1994), and research suggests that acute bouts of exercise may be as effective as other traditional treatment forms (Broocks et al., 1998). This study examined the link between exercise and dental anxiety. Participants (N = 16) with non-clinical dental anxiety (Corah, 1969) were randomly assigned to either (a) an exercise (riding stationary bike - 15 minutes) or (b) control (sitting) condition. Participants completed measures of state anxiety (Spielberger, 1983) both before and after sitting in a dental exam chair while imagining they were having a cavity filled (during which a drill was activated and a dental needle was in view) Results of a 2 (condition) x 2 (time) ANOVA revealed a significant interaction, p < .03, partial η2 = .31 where anxiety decreased significantly in the exercise condition (CI95 = .40 - 1.19), but did not change in the control group (CI95 = -.24 - .54). In essence, it appeared that an acute bout of exercise helped to reduce the anxiety participants reported as a result of their presence in a dental procedure context, whereas those in the usual-care approach showed no improvement. If this finding can be replicated, using exercise as treatment for reducing dental anxiety has the added benefit of exercise also being associated with other health benefits (Carr et al., 2013).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".