The efficacy of home based progressive strength training in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of a high intensity home-based progressive strength training program on the clinical signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Forty-six community dwelling patients, aged 55 years or older with knee pain and radiographic evidence of knee OA, were randomized to a 4 month home based progressive strength training program or a nutrition education program (attention control). Thirty-eight patients completed the trial with an adherence of 84% to the intervention and 65% to the attention control. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index pain and physical function subscales. Secondary outcomes included clinical knee examination, muscle strength, physical performance measures, and questionnaires to measure quality of life variables. RESULTS: Patients in the strength training group who completed the trial had a 71% improvement in knee extension strength in the leg reported as most painful versus a 3% improvement in the control group (p < 0.01). In a modified intent to treat analysis, self-reported pain improved by 36% and physical function by 38% in the strength training group versus 11 and 21%, respectively, in the control group (p = 0.01 for between group comparison). In addition, those patients in the strength training group who completed the trial had a 43% mean reduction in pain (p = 0.01 vs controls), a 44% mean improvement in self-reported physical function (p < 0.01 vs controls), and improvements in physical performance, quality of life, and self-efficacy when compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: High intensity, home based strength training can produce substantial improvements in strength, pain, physical function and quality of life in patients with knee OA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".