The Effects of Group-Based versus Individual-Based Tai Chi Training on Nonmotor Symptoms in Patients with Mild to Moderate Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective . To compare the effects of group-based and individual-based Tai Chi training on nonmotor symptoms in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Design . Randomized controlled pilot study. Methods . 36 community-dwelling patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) were randomly assigned to either group-based training group (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">19</mml:mn></mml:math>) or individual-based group (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">17</mml:mn></mml:math>). Both groups received same content of Tai Chi training 3 times a week for 13 weeks. Participants were also asked to perform home exercises daily. The Non-Motor Symptoms Scale was used to assess global nonmotor symptoms change. Sleep quality, depression, and cognition were evaluated by Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale, Hamilton Depression Scale, and Beijing version-Montreal Cognitive Assessment, respectively. Home exercise compliance was recorded. Results . There was no significant difference between two groups at baseline. After 13 weeks, there were no statistical significance between two groups. However, the within-group effect was different. Participants in group-based and individual-based groups showed a significant improvement on global nonmotor symptoms (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo><</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.001</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.004</mml:mn></mml:math>) and sleep (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo><</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.001</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo><</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.001</mml:mn></mml:math>). But only group-based training patients presented a significant improvement in cognitive impairment compared with baseline (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.002</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.116</mml:mn></mml:math>). For depression, no group gained a significant improvement(<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M9"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.123</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M10"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.170</mml:mn></mml:math>). Group-based participants had a higher home-exercise compliance rate (HeCR) than individual-based participants did (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M11"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.019</mml:mn></mml:math>), and HeCR showed a moderate correlation with MoCA-BJ and NMSS scores changes in this study. Conclusion . Group-based Tai Chi training is considered to be a more effective and a more labor-saving method in the clinical settings, and patients tend to have a higher compliance rate in their home exercise program. This study is registered with ChiCTR-IPR-17010388 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".