EXERCISE CAPACITY, MUSCLE FUNCTION, FUNCTIONAL BALANCE, AND COGNITIVE STATUS IN PATIENTS WITH POST COVID-19 SYNDROME COMPARED TO HEALTHY CONTROLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is limited data on the effect of post-COVID-19 syndrome on functional outcomes compared with healthy uninfected individuals. This study aimed to compare the muscle function, exercise capacity, and quality of life of patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome with that of healthy controls. Method: Twenty patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome and twenty healthy controls participated in the study. The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) was used to measure exercise capacity, and the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) was used to assess functional balance. Quadriceps muscle strength (QMS) and handgrip strength (HGS) were measured. Assessment tools included the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) for pain, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) for movement fear, the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) for dyspnea, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) for fatigue perception, and the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) for cognitive status. Results: The mMRC dyspnea, TSK, FSS, SF-MPQ total scores, and pain severity of patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome were higher than those of healthy controls (p<.05). Compared to the healthy group, the ISWT and %ISWT distances were significantly lower in the post-COVID-19 group (p<.05). Conclusion: Exercise capacity is negatively affected; anxiety, pain, fatigue severity, dyspnea, and kinesiophobia levels are increased in patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome compared with healthy groups. However, muscle strength, balance, and cognitive function are preserved in individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. Pulmonary rehabilitation programs should be designed on the basis of these multiple influences with a multidisciplinary approach in the long-term rehabilitation of individuals with COVID-19 infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".