Functional and physiological outcomes in axial spondyloarthritis: comparing biological and non-biological treatment approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatments have been shown to improve physical and physiological functions in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare core endurance, exercise capacity, cardiopulmonary responses during exercise testing, quality of life (QoL), and disease activity among patients with axSpA using biological and non-biological treatments, and healthy controls. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 52 patients on biological therapy, 57 on non-biological drugs, and 46 healthy controls. Core endurance (McGill tests), exercise capacity (six-minute stepper test), and disease activity indexes (The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Indices; BASDAI, BASMI, BASFI, ASDAS-CRP, Leeds Enthesitis Index; LEI), spinal and hip radiographic scores (modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score; mSASSS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Hip Index; BASRI-hip), pain (Numeric Rating Scale), patient and physician global assessments, cardiopulmonary responses, quadriceps muscle fatigue and dyspnea (Modified Borg scale), laboratory markers (CRP, ESR), and QoL (Ankylosing Spondylitis QoL Scale; ASQoL) were measured. RESULTS: < .001). Step count variance was explained by BASMI, BASDAI, BASFI, ASQoL, and trunk endurance, accounting for 34.1% of the total variance. CONCLUSION: These findings may assist clinicians in planning personalized rehabilitation programs by considering not only functional limitations but also treatment history of the patients with axSpA. Understanding the effects of pharmacological treatment history on exercise capacity and core muscle endurance may guide the development of more effective physiotherapy approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".