One-year effectiveness of long-term exercise therapy in people with axial spondyloarthritis and severe functional limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of long-term, personalized, supervised exercise therapy on functional ability compared with usual care in people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and severe functional limitations. Methods Participants were randomly 1:1 assigned to the intervention [maximal 64 sessions, with 14 additional optional sessions of supervised active exercise therapy (e.g. aerobic and muscle strengthening) with individualized goal-setting, education and self-management regarding physical activity] or usual care (care determined by clinician(s) and participants themselves). Primary endpoint was the change in the Patient-Specific Complaints activity ranked 1 [PSC1 (0–10)] at 52 weeks. Secondary endpoints were the PSC activities ranked 2 and 3, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, 6-min walk test, Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function-10 and the Short Form-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary Score (SF-36 PCS and MCS). Statistical comparisons comprised independent student t-tests and linear mixed models, based on intention-to-treat. Results 214 participants [49% female, age 52 (S.D. 12) years], were randomized to the intervention (n = 110) or usual care (n = 104) group. In the intervention group 93% started treatment, using on average 40.5 sessions (S.D. 15.1). At 52 weeks, the difference in change in PSC1 between groups favoured the intervention group [mean difference (95% CI); −1.8 (−2.4 to −1.2)]. Additionally, all secondary outcomes, except the SF-36 MSC, showed significantly greater improvements in the intervention group with effect sizes ranging from 0.4 to 0.7. Conclusion Long-term, supervised exercise therapy proved more effective than usual care in improving functional disability and physical quality of life in people with axSpA and severe functional limitations. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NL8238, included in the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL8238).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".