Is a long‐term high‐intensity exercise program effective and safe in patients with rheumatoid arthritis?: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are insufficient data on the effects of long-term intensive exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We undertook this randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of a 2-year intensive exercise program (Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients In Training [RAPIT]) with those of physical therapy (termed usual care [UC]). METHODS: Three hundred nine RA patients were assigned to either the RAPIT program or UC. The primary end points were functional ability (assessed by the McMaster Toronto Arthritis [MACTAR] Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire and the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]) and the effects on radiographic progression in large joints. Secondary end points concerned emotional status and disease activity. RESULTS: After 2 years, participants in the RAPIT program showed greater improvement in functional ability than participants in UC. The mean difference in change of the MACTAR Questionnaire score was 2.6 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.1, 5.2) over the first year and 3.1 (95% CI 0.7, 5.5) over the second year. After 2 years, the mean difference in change of the HAQ score was -0.09 (95% CI -0.18, -0.01). The median radiographic damage of the large joints did not increase in either group. In both groups, participants with considerable baseline damage showed slightly more progression in damage, and this was more obvious in the RAPIT group. The RAPIT program proved to be effective in improving emotional status. No detrimental effects on disease activity were found. CONCLUSION: A long-term high-intensity exercise program is more effective than UC in improving functional ability of RA patients. Intensive exercise does not increase radiographic damage of the large joints, except possibly in patients with considerable baseline damage of the large joints.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".