Table tennis for patients with Parkinson’s disease: A single-center, prospective pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Table tennis is a popular sport worldwide. However, no study has examined whether it is an effective exercise for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The efficacy and safety of table tennis exercise for PD patients was examined. METHODS: This 6-month prospective study investigated if our table tennis exercise program could improve parkinsonian motor symptoms, cognition and psychiatric symptoms. Twelve PD patients with Hoehn & Yahr stage ≤4 were recruited. Patients participated in a 6-hour exercise session once weekly. All patients were assessed with the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts I-IV, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and Starkstein Apathy Scale (SAS) at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Nine of 12 PD patients were analyzed, except for three patients for which data was missing. MDS-UPDRS parts II and III were improved at 3 months (median -4.0, p = 0.012 and median -10.0, p = 0.012) and 6 months (median -7.0, p = 0.015 and median -12.0, p = 0.008), whereas MDS-UPDRS total parts I scores and total IV scores, MoCA, FAB, SDS, and SAS were unchanged. Adverse events included fall and backache in one patient each. CONCLUSION: A table tennis exercise program is relatively safe and may improve activities of daily living and motor symptoms in patients with PD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".