Does Kinesiophobia Effect One Day Physical Activity Behaviour and Functionality of Young People with Ankylosing Spondylitis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between kinesiophobia, physical activity behaviour and functionality in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Methods: This study included 57 participants (mean age, 30.8 ± 5.19 years) in 2 groups of AS and healthy controls. One day physical activity behaviour was evaluated with tri-axial accelerometer. Tri-axial accelerometer was recorded physical activity domains and intensities for 24 hours. Participants completed clinical questionnaires assessing pain, kinesophobia, disease activity, and functionality. Kinesiophobia and pain were quantified by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Function and disease activity were rated by using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score.Results: There was no correlation between kinesiophobia and one day physical activity behaviour in AS patients group. There was a negative correlation between high physical activity level and disease activity(p<0.05, r:-.519) and there was a negative correlation between high and moderate physical activity levels, and functionality (p <0.05, r:-.555 r:-395, respectively).Conclusion: According to the results of this study showed that; there was a relationship between disease activity, functionality, and one day physical activity behaviour. On the other hand, there was not any relation between pain intensity, kinesophobia and data obtained from accelerometer. Further studies with larger sample size and longer time periods should be carried out to reveal physical activity behaviours and its related factors in AS patients who will survive with this disease for years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".