MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121126478 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004259

Intensity of exercise for the treatment of osteoarthritis

2003· review· en· W2121126478 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Brosseau, Lynn MacLeay, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, George A. Wells

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonError in Analyses;Error in Materials;Retract and Replace;Unreliable Data;
Date2/28/2013 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyIntensity (physics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic exercise is used as one modality to treat people with osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise of differing intensities on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in people with OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including December 2002. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of therapeutic exercises compared to control or active interventions in people with OA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were also accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. The two reviewers used a five point scale to assess the quality of the selected articles. Randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals were assessed. MAIN RESULTS: One study involving 39 participants met the inclusion criteria. The review indicates that there were no significant differences between high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise on participants with OA of the knee for functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity (Mangione 1999). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Both high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise appear to be equally effective in improving a patient's functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity for people with OA of the knee. Further research involving a greater number of subjects, and a larger number of studies involving a control group is needed to further substantiate these results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations167
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207