Social support may not impact physical function outcomes following a tango or walking intervention in people with Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor physical function influences social support among people with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Physical function can be improved through exercise, but whether social support influences intervention responsiveness is unclear. This study aimed to (1) examine the influence of 12 weeks of group exercise (tango or walking) on physical function in people with PD who reported low versus high baseline social support, and (2) determine the influence of intervention type on social support effects. This exploratory analysis of an ongoing assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial (1:1) [NCT04122690] included 40 participants with PD (69.24 ± 7.73 years; 26.3% female; Hoehn & Yahr: 2.28 ± 0.58). We used the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support to categorize participants into high or low support groups. Participants were assessed OFF medication at baseline and 12 weeks using the timed-up-and-go, 360-degree turn, forward, backward, and fast gait speed, 6-min walk, chair stand, and tandem stance tests. Participants were randomized into tango (n = 20) or walking (n = 20) groups and completed 20 sessions within 12 weeks. Left foot tandem stance trended toward improvement regardless of social support (p = 0.06). An interaction among time, support, and intervention indicated that participants in the walking group with low social support improved more on the chair stand test (p = 0.03). No adverse intervention-related events occurred. Overall, high and low social support groups improved similarly following tango or walking interventions. Those in the walking group with low support may have benefited more. Therapeutic intervention targeting physical function regardless of social network in people with PD is important.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".