Portuguese and Brazilian guidelines for the treatment of depression: exercise as medicine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is a psychiatric disorder and major contributor to the burden of disease worldwide. The strength of evidence of the benefits of exercise as a therapeutic intervention for patients with depression has expanded in the last 30 years. In fact, the available evidence indicates exercise can not only help manage depressive symptoms, but also effect significant improvements in other health outcomes. Clinical guidelines including such recommendations have been issued by different agencies, namely the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP). With increasing recognition of the benefits of exercise and shortcomings of healthcare systems, other countries, such as Sweden and Canada, have included exercise in their national guidelines for treating depression. Unfortunately, progress in incorporating exercise guidelines into clinical practice has been slow, and Portugal and Brazil reflect this reality. In this update, we reemphasize the importance of bridging this gap and integrating exercise into clinical practice guidelines as an essential component of depression treatment.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it