Physical Activity and Attitudes Toward Exercise in People With Axial and Peripheral Spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physical activity and attitudes toward exercise among people with axial (ax-) and peripheral (p-) spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: Using baseline information from an ongoing, longitudinal, prospective SpA cohort study (n = 264), self-reported attitudes and beliefs toward exercise were assessed using questionnaires. Total metabolic equivalent (MET) hours of self-reported physical activity per week, time spent in activities, and activity levels were calculated from the Nurses' Health Study Physical Activity Questionnaire II (NHSPAQ II). Adjusted multivariable linear models estimated the relationship between physical activity and disease status (axial vs peripheral). RESULTS: Regardless of predominant anatomic distribution of disease, most participants were well-educated, non-Hispanic White men. Approximately 40% met the US Department of Health and Human Services physical activity recommendations. Positive attitudes, beliefs, and perceived benefits toward exercise were similar by anatomic distribution of disease. Despite similar MET h/week, participants with axial disease had greater concerns regarding discomfort and joint injuries than those with peripheral disease. Compared to those with pSpA (n = 201), participants with axSpA (n = 63) spent less time engaging in light and moderate activities (adjusted β in light activity: -1.94 min/week, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.93; adjusted β in moderate activity: -1.05 min/week, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: Participants with axSpA had greater concerns regarding discomfort and injuries from exercise than those with pSpA. Although no differences in time spent in vigorous activities were observed, participants with axSpA spent less time than those with pSpA in light to moderate activities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".