Effect of aerobic exercise on pain and quality of life in women with primary dysmenorrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Primary dysmenorrhea is a pain full menstruation without any pelvic pathology, and that’s the most common health problem among women of reproductive age. Primary dysmenorrhea described as painful cramps during menstruation that leads absenteeism and affect the QOL, its associated with restriction of activity and absence from routine activity. The objectives are to find out effectiveness of aerobic exercise on reducing pain and improving of quality of life in women with primary dysmenorrhea, and if there is possibility then what can be the adequate duration of aerobic training to be effective.Purpose of Study: The aim of the study to find out effect of Aerobic Exercise on pain and QOL in women with primary dysmenorrhea.Methodology: Article from different search engines like PubMed, Research Gate, Google Scholar are being reviewed. Articles from previous 5 years, those which are available in full text and published in English language are included.Result: Article showed positive effect of aerobic exercise in reducing pain which was assessed through Premenstrual syndrome scale, visual analogue scale, short form McGill pain questionnaire, numerical pain rating scale, and QOL also improved which was also assessed through QOL- 12 item short form health survey, quality of life enjoyment & satisfaction questionnaire – short form (Q-LES-Q-SF), Moo’s menstrual distress questionnaire, short form of international physical activity questionnaire.Conclusion: The study concluded that 6 to 8 ±2 weeks of aerobic exercise is effective in reducing pain and improving QOL in women with primary dysmenorrhea. There are very few recent evidences supporting the topic hence more researches should be conducted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".