Exercise Habits in People with Parkinson's: A Multinational Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise has been demonstrated to result in improvements in physical function, cognition, and quality of life in People with Parkinson's (PwP) but its adoption is variable. OBJECTIVES: To investigate exercise preferences, levels, influencing factors among a diverse Parkinson's disease (PD) population, to understand exercise adoption patterns and plan informed interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey collected data through online platforms and paper-based methods. The Exercise Index (ExI) calculated exercise level based on frequency and duration. RESULTS: Of 2976 PwP, 40.6% exercised regularly, 38.3% occasionally, and 21.2% did not exercise. The overall mean ExI was 18.99 ± 12.37. Factors associated with high exercise levels included exercising in groups (ExI 24-26), weightlifting (ExI 27 (highest)), using muscle-building equipment (ExI 25-26), and exercising at home following an app (ExI 26). A positive trend between ExI and varied exercise groups, locations, types, and equipment was observed. No expected benefit from exercise achieved the lowest ExI (8). Having at least two exercise-promoting factors, a bachelor's degree or higher, receiving exercise advice at initial visits, and aged ≤40 years at PD onset were strong predictors of exercise (adjust OR = 7.814; 6.981; 4.170; 3.565). Falls and "other" most troublesome PD symptoms were negative predictors (aOR = 0.359; 0.466). Barriers to exercise did not predict the odds of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that PwP's exercise behavior is influenced by their exercise belief, age at PD onset, doctor's advice at initial visits, education level, symptoms, and exercise-promoting factors. High exercise levels were associated with certain types of exercises and exercising in groups.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".