Impact of a structured, group-based running programme on clinical, cognitive and social function in youth and adults with complex mood disorders: a 12-week pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with mood disorders often report lingering health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and social and cognitive impairments even after mood symptoms have improved. Exercise programmes improve mood symptoms in patients, but whether exercise improves functional outcomes in patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders remains unknown. DESIGN: We evaluated the impact of a 12-week structured running programme on cognitive, social and quality-of-life outcomes in participants with difficult-to-treat mood disorders. METHODS: running programme for youth and adults with mood disorders completed a comprehensive assessment battery before and after the 12-week exercise intervention. RESULTS: We collected preintervention and postintervention data from 18 participants who improved on the general health, vitality, role of emotions, social functioning and mental health (all p≤0.01) HRQOL subscales. Performance improved on cognitive tests that assessed working memory and processing speed (p≤0.04); there were no improvements in complex executive functioning tasks. Regression analyses indicated that younger age, shorter illness duration and reduced bodily pain predicted social and cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION: Participation in a group-based, structured running programme was associated with improved HRQOL and social and cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".