Longterm Effect on Leisure Time Physical Activity Level in Individuals with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the longterm effect of a 3-month exercise program on leisure time physical activity level in individuals with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed on data from 100 individuals with axSpA who were included in a randomized controlled trial. The exercise group (EG) participated in a 3-month exercise program while the control group (CG) received no intervention. Physical activity during leisure time was measured with a questionnaire (physically active: ≥ 1 h/week with moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity). Disease activity was measured with the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale (ASDAS; higher score = worst). Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using chi-square tests, logistic regression, and mixed models. RESULTS: At the 12-month followup, significantly more individuals in the EG than in the CG were physically active [29 (67%) vs 13 (30%), p < 0.001] and exercised 2-3 times/week [25 (58%) vs 15 (34%), p = 0.02], and fewer exercised at light intensity [3 (8%) vs 14 (44%), p = 0.002]. "Participation in the EG" (OR 6.7, 95% CI 2.4-18.6, p < 0.001) and "being physically active at baseline" (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.4-15.8, p = 0.01) were the factors most associated with being physically active. There were no differences between the groups in ASDAS (p = 0.79). CONCLUSION: A 3-month exercise program had a beneficial longterm effect on leisure time physical activity in individuals with axSpA, thus indicating a more beneficial health profile. Still, few individuals continued the intensive program, and there was no difference between the groups in disease activity after 12 months. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02356874).
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".