Phase I randomized single-blinded controlled study investigating the potential benefit of aerobic exercise in degenerative cerebellar disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether people with cerebellar degeneration can perform rigorous aerobic exercise and to assess the clinical impact of training. DESIGN: Randomized single-blinded controlled, feasibility study comparing aerobic training to no training. SETTING: Home intervention, assessments conducted at an academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Twenty individuals with cerebellar degeneration caused by a range of genetic disorders. INTERVENTION: Aerobic training consisted of four weeks of stationary bicycle training, five times per week for 30-minute sessions. Intensity ranged from 65% to 80% of the participant's maximal heart rate determined during cardiopulmonary exercise testing. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was change in the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia scores. Recruitment rate, adherence, drop-out, and adverse events were also determined. The treatment was considered technically feasible if participants achieved target training frequency, duration, and intensity. RESULTS: The 20 participants mean age was 50 years (standard deviation 15.65 years) and average Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia score was 9.6 (standard deviation 3.13). Ten participants were randomized to aerobic training and 10 to no training. Seven participants in the aerobic group attained target training duration, frequency, and intensity. There was a mean reduction in ataxia severity of 2.1 points (standard deviation 1.26) with four weeks of aerobic training, whereas ataxia severity increased by 0.3 (standard deviation 0.62) in the control group over the same period. Walking speed, balance measures, and fitness also improved in individuals who performed aerobic exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous aerobic training is feasible in people with cerebellar degeneration. Improvements in ataxia, balance, and gait are promising.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".