MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782802915 · doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0016

Levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in patients with fibromyalgia and chronic low back pain: Results of an aquatic physical therapy protocol

2018· article· en· W2782802915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniela Gomez Martin, Carolina David Wiener, Caroline Xavier de Freitas, Joice Luisa Costa, Aírton José Rombaldi, Jean Pierre Oses

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibromyalgiaMedicineBrain-derived neurotrophic factorPhysical therapyNeurotrophic factorsVisual analogue scaleInternal medicineChronic painPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This work aims to assess changes in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in women after the practice of a specific short duration 10-session aquatic physical therapy protocol in patients with fibromyalgia (FB). Methods: Case–control study. Thirteen women diagnosed with FB and 11 controls with the same age group, 35–55 years. Patients were evaluated according to the visual analog scale of pain and the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ). All were subjected to a short protocol totaling 10 sessions of 40 min twice a week for five weeks. Heart rate and pain were monitored. BDNF levels were measured using enzyme immunoassay. Results: A statistically significant increase in BDNF values was noted in patients with FB between the pre- and post-10th session assessments (mean of 35.52–41.96; p = 0.041). Conclusion: BDNF values may present fluctuations during a short duration moderate aerobic exercise protocol, when measured and analyzed in a longitudinal design. Further studies with a more frequent BDNF evaluation could help in understanding its behavior more accurately and are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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