Associations for change in physical and psychological factors and treatment response following exercise in knee osteoarthritis: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding how changes in physical and psychological factors following therapeutic exercise are associated with treatment outcome could have important implications for refining rehabilitation programs for knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this study was to examine the association of changes in these factors with changes in pain and function after an exercise program for people with knee OA. METHODS: In total, 152 people with knee OA completed an exercise program consisting of lower extremity strengthening, stretching, range of motion, balance and agility, and aerobic exercises. The change from baseline to the 2-month followup was calculated for physical and psychological factors, including self-reported knee instability, quadriceps strength, knee and ankle range of motion, lower extremity muscle flexibility, fear of physical activity, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Treatment response was defined as a minimum of a 20% improvement from baseline in both a numerical knee pain rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function scale. The association of each factor with treatment response was examined with logistic regression mutually adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, radiographic severity, and exercise group. RESULTS: Change in self-reported knee instability (odds ratio [OR] 1.67 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.13-2.47]) and fear of physical activity (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.88-1.00]) were the only 2 factors that were significantly associated with treatment response after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Improvement in knee instability and fear of physical activity were associated with increased odds of a positive treatment response following therapeutic exercise in subjects 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".