Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether physical exercise constitutes a benefit or a risk in the development and progression of knee osteoarthritis. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, ACP Journal Club, and Cochrane databases were searched from registry inception to January 2009 using MeSH headings or text words, including osteoarthritis, arthritis and knee and exercise, physical training, and run. Reference lists from retrieved articles, citation listings when available, and related articles suggested in PubMed were also evaluated. For individuals without osteoarthritis, strong level II evidence was found (limited by problems with blinding and randomization); for those with pre-existing knee osteoarthritis, robust level I evidence was available. MAIN MESSAGE: Knee osteoarthritis is a major contributor to disability in seniors, and patients have expressed concern that continued exercise might lead to knee symptoms in later years. Studies done on subjects self-selected for exercise and followed for substantial periods of time show no evidence of accelerated development of osteoarthritis, provided injury is avoided. Further, there is good evidence for reduced pain and disability with exercise in this cohort compared with controls. Patients with established osteoarthritis are shown to derive uniform benefit to physical functioning, with reduction of pain and disability, using aerobic, muscle strengthening, aquatic, or physiotherapy-based exercise modalities. CONCLUSION: Provided trauma is avoided, moderate exercise does not lead to acceleration of knee osteoarthritis, whether or not there is evidence of pre-existing disease. In either case there appears to be improved physical functioning and reduction of pain and disability in those who exercise. It is likely that exercise interventions are underused in the management of established knee osteoarthritis symptoms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".