Boxing vs Sensory Exercise for Parkinson’s Disease: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Exercise is increasingly becoming recognized as an important adjunct to medications in the clinical management of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Boxing and sensory exercise have shown immediate benefits, but whether they continue beyond program completion is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effects of boxing and sensory training on motor symptoms of PD, and whether these benefits remain upon completion of the intervention. Methods. In this 20-week double-blinded randomized controlled trial, 40 participants with idiopathic PD were randomized into 2 treatment groups, (n = 20) boxing or (n = 20) sensory exercise. Participants completed 10 weeks of intervention. Motor symptoms were assessed at (week 0, 10, and 20) using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III). Data were analyzed using SPSS, and repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Results. A significant interaction effect between groups and time were observed F(1, 39) = 4.566, P = .036, where the sensory group improved in comparison to the boxing group. Post hoc analysis revealed that in comparison to boxing, the effects of exercise did not wear off at washout (week 20) P < .006. Conclusion. Future rehabilitation research should incorporate similar measures to explore whether effects of exercise wear off post intervention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".