Outcomes of Home-Based Rehabilitation Provided by Primary Therapists for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving treatment from a rheumatology-trained primary therapist and to assess the feasibility of the research protocol. Method: The experimental (E) group received treatment from a primary therapist in addition to their overall medical care. The usual care (UC) group continued receiving usual medical care. The first 10 patients completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, a pain visual analogue scale, and the Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit RA Knowledge Questionnaire. Patients were classified as clinical responders if they showed 20% improvement in two-thirds of core measures between baseline and 6 months. Baseline assessment was performed immediately prior to randomization. All patients completed the EuroQol and a monthly health resource use questionnaire. Results: A trend towards improvement was found in the E group (n = 11) in all clinical measures at discharge (approximately 6 weeks from baseline) and 6 months from baseline. In contrast, the UC group (n = 13) showed a slight deterioration in pain (at 6 weeks) and in disease-specific knowledge (at 6 months). Three of six patients in the E group and one of four patients in the UC group met the criteria of clinical responders. Conclusions: The study suggests an improvement trend in patient outcomes after treatment from a primary therapist and that the study protocol is feasible for a full-scale clinical trial.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".