Author’s information (optional)
Url Link
The hyperlink to my paper’s website.
Methods
We expected the reduction in the BRMS depression scores to be about 20% greater in the intervention than in the control group on the basis of pilot research. A calculation of the sample size showed that a minimum of 20 patients was required in each group to detect this difference with a probability of a 5% and 20% α and β error.
The researchers thought that the group doing exercise would have about 20% more improvement in depression scores than the control group, based on earlier small studies. They calculated that they needed at least 20 people in each group to make sure the results would be reliable, with only a small chance of random error.
Introduction
Several randomised controlled trials have shown that physical activity improves the mood of patients with mild to moderate depression after several weeks. However, experiments in animals indicate that even a single exercise bout generates considerable changes in the brain concentration of neurotransmitters involved in the pathophysiology of depression.
Previous studies on people found that regular exercise can help improve mood in those with mild to moderate depression after a few weeks. But animal studies show that even one session of exercise can quickly change the levels of brain chemicals that affect depression.
Results
This difference resulted in significantly lower depression scores for the training group at the end of the study, on adjusting for baseline scores. Exercise (b = −4.57, se(b) = 1.32, F = 15.61, df = 1.26, p = 0.001) and depression scores on admission (b = 0.86, se(b) = 0.12, F = 34.96, df = 1.26, p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the end points; the effect of the concomitant drug on the end points was not significant (F = 2.24, df = 4.26, p = 0.09).
exercised had much lower depression scores by the end of the study. The data showed that exercise clearly made a difference, while the medications people were taking didn’t seem to have a strong effect on the results.
Discussion
Our findings are in contrast with the results of a randomised controlled trial which compared the response to exercise, drugs or a combination of both in older patients with a major depressive disorder. In this study, antidepressants facilitated a more rapid initial therapeutic response than exercise.
The results of this study were different from another trial done with older adults who had major depression. In that earlier study, antidepressant medication helped people feel better faster at the beginning compared to exercise.
Future Directions
Future research should follow up on this work by testing how long the antidepressant effects of exercise last after the training ends. It would also be helpful to study larger groups of patients, try different types or intensities of exercise, and see whether exercise helps people with different kinds or severities of depression.
Difficult Material
I found it difficult to understand some of the statistical parts of the paper, especially the meaning of the numbers like “b,” “F,” and “p-values” in the results section. I understood that these show how strong or reliable the findings are, but I would need more help learning exactly how they are calculated and interpreted.
URL link:
Paste the hyperlink to the website containing the original posting about the paper – NOT to the scientific paper itself (either the public posting webpage, or the Moodle forum webpage):
https://moodle.tru.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1136084
Additional Translation:
From which section of the paper is this passage?
Introduction
Paste quoted text on the next line. Do not include quotation marks or a bullet mark:
Indeed, research in animal models has shown that endurance training increases cortical capillary supplies, the number of synaptic connections and the development of new neurones. These processes may result in a higher efficiency, plasticity and adaptability of the brain.
Write your translation on the next line:
Research on animals has shown that endurance training increases blood supply to the brain, the development of new brain cells, and more connections between brain cells. These things may give the brain a greater ability to change over time and work at its best.
Additional Future Directions:
What future research do you think should follow up on this work?
I think an interesting future study would be to compare the efficacy of this intervention to that of an even more intense form of exercise. The authors hypothesize that this specific exercise intervention lowered depression scores because it was more intense than the exercise in another study that didn’t affect depression scores. Inversely, I would like to see if a future study with even more intense exercise has a greater effect in lowering depression scores.
Difficult Material (from original poster or subsequent student):
What did the previous poster state was difficult to understand? (please copy and paste their statement here):
I found it difficult to understand some of the statistical parts of the paper, especially the meaning of the numbers like “b,” “F,” and “p-values” in the results section. I understood that these show how strong or reliable the findings are, but I would need more help learning exactly how they are calculated and interpreted.
Please try to explain the difficult materials to the original poster, as best as you can. (This is where you can help them understand what they found difficult.)
The values b and F are both used in statistical tests when performing data analysis. Specifically, b is a coefficient in the regression equation for the dataset. Think (y=mx+b), where m and b are each replaced by their own b coefficient. F stands for the F ratio, and is used in different ways depending on the test, but helps to determine whether or not a result is statistically significant. The p-value is important for determining whether the results are reliable and would be reproducible. A p-value of 0.05 is the most common benchmark for statistical significance, meaning there is a 5% chance or less that a result is due to random chance alone.
New Difficult Material (according to you):
What did you not understand about this paper, that someone else can help with? If you understood everything, then what did you find most challenging to understand?
I also found some of the statistical analysis section challenging to understand. It mentions that differences within and between groups were measured using the Fisher, the Wilcoxon or the Mann–Whitney test, but I am unfamiliar with these tests and how exactly they measure the differences.