Effect of Exercise and Weight Loss in People Who Have Hip Osteoarthritis and Are Overweight or Obese: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder in the world and is recognized as a substantial source of disability. For people with OA of the knee, exercise in combination with weight loss is a proven, effective, conservative treatment option, yet evidence is lacking for people with hip OA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain preliminary evidence of the effect of a program of exercise in combination with weight loss on physical function in people who have hip OA and are overweight or obese. DESIGN: This investigation was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-five people who were 25 years or older, had clinical and radiological evidence of hip OA, and were overweight or obese (body mass index of >25 kg/m(2)) were included. They participated in an 8-month program of exercise in combination with weight loss. A body mass index of 40 kg/m(2) was used as the upper limit. The primary outcome was self-reported physical function, as measured with a subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Secondary outcome measures included pain and walking tests as quantitative measures of function. RESULTS: Participation in the combination program resulted in a 32.6% improvement in self-reported physical function after 8 months, a finding that could be considered clinically relevant. Significant improvements also were seen in pain and on walking tests. LIMITATIONS: The lack of a control group was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: This appears to be the first study investigating the effect of exercise and weight loss as a combination treatment in people with hip OA. The results provide preliminary evidence that this combination treatment is effective in people with hip 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".