Beneficial Effects of Regular Physical Activity on Exercise-Induced Analgesia in Adolescent Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate exercise-induced analgesia (EIA) effectiveness in healthy adolescent males and to investigate possible associations between EIA and physiological/psychological variables. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy adolescent males (14-17 y) participated in this study. EIA was evaluated by comparing perceptions of heat pain stimulations before and after an increasing maximal load test on a cycle ergometer (VO2max). RESULTS: Pain intensity for mild and strong heat pain stimulations significantly decreased following physical exercise (mild: EIA = 28.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.9; P < .001 and strong: EIA = 11.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.4; P = .002). The number of physical activity hours per week was positively correlated with the effectiveness of EIA for mild and strong pain intensity (r = .41, P = .03 and r = .43, P = .02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Intense physical exercise decreases perception of intensity of experimental heat pain in healthy adolescent males. The least physically active adolescents have reduced EIA effectiveness to experimental heat pain stimulations compared with physically active ones. Adolescents adopting an active lifestyle have more endogenous pain inhibition and could, therefore, potentially be less disposed to suffer from chronic pain later in life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".