Heart Rate Variability and Respiratory Muscle Strength in Patients WithType II Diabetes Practicing Pilates: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the effect of a Pilates protocol on respiratory muscle strength and heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Method: A randomized clinical trial (RBR-2gc2qj) was conducted on a type 2 diabetic target population. Patients practiced the Pilates protocol for 8 weeks, with two visits per week. The variables tested were maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), and HRV (time and frequency domains). All variables were tested for normal distribution. Using SPSS 21.0, analysis of variance was performed for variables with normal distribution, and the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used for variables that did not show a normal distribution, with a 5% significance level. Results: Forty-four participants were included in the study (intervention group: 22; control group: 22; mean age: 61.23 ± 8.49 years), most of whom were female (77.3%), married or in a consensual union (59.1%), had complete literacy (31.8%), and had an average body mass index of 26.96 ± 4.35 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in MIP and MEP before and after the protocol between the intervention and control groups. Regarding HRV, there were significant differences in autonomic modulation, especially between the moments before and during exercise and between the moments during and after exercise; however, it was not possible to determine which system (sympathetic or parasympathetic) is most involved in these changes. Conclusion: The exercise protocol based on the Pilates method did not alter respiratory muscle strength but promoted changes in HRV, especially between the moments before and during exercise and during and after exercise. Clinical Trial Registration Number: RBR-2gc2qj.
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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it