Intensive Lifestyle Intervention Improves Physical Function Among Obese Adults With Knee Pain: Findings From the Look AHEAD Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifestyle interventions have resulted in weight loss or improved physical fitness among individuals with obesity, which may lead to improved physical function. This prospective investigation involved participants in the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial who reported knee pain at baseline (n = 2,203). The purposes of this investigation were to determine whether an Intensive Lifestyle Intervention (ILI) condition resulted in improvement in self-reported physical function from baseline to 12 months vs. a Diabetes Support and Education (DSE) condition, and whether changes in weight or fitness mediated the effect of the ILI. Outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales, and WOMAC summary score. ILI participants exhibited greater adjusted mean weight loss (s.e.) vs. DSE participants (-9.02 kg (0.48) vs. -0.78 kg (0.49); P < 0.001)). ILI participants also demonstrated more favorable change in WOMAC summary scores vs. DSE participants (β (s.e.) = -1.81 (0.63); P = 0.004). Multiple regression mediation analyses revealed that weight loss was a mediator of the effect of the ILI intervention on change in WOMAC pain, function, and summary scores (P < 0.001). In separate analyses, increased fitness also mediated the effect of the ILI intervention upon WOMAC summary score (P < 0.001). The ILI condition resulted in significant improvement in physical function among overweight and obese adults with diabetes and knee pain. The ILI condition also resulted in significant weight loss and improved fitness, which are possible mechanisms through which the ILI condition improved physical function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".