Acute effect of physical exercise on negative affect in borderline personality disorder: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical exercise is an evidence-based treatment to reduce symptoms and negative affect in several psychiatric disorders, including depressive, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. However, the effect of physical exercise on negative affect in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) has not yet been investigated. In this pilot study, we tested the safety, acceptability, and potential acute effects on negative affect of a single session of aerobic physical exercise in adults with BPD. Method: After completing a negative mood induction procedure, 28 adults with BPD were randomly assigned to a 20-minute single session of stationary bicycle or a control condition (emotionally neutral video). Results: No adverse effects attributed to the physical exercise were reported and it was considered acceptable to patients. Following the negative mood induction, both conditions decreased the level of negative affect with a medium effect size but there was no significant difference between them. Conclusion: The results suggest that a single 20-minute session of physical exercise does not produce a reduction of negative affect in BPD. Future research should consider the duration and intensities of physical exercise with the greatest potential to reduce negative affect both acutely and in a more prolonged manner in this patient group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".