Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and determine the effectiveness of exercise treatment in osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: A computerised literature search of Medline was carried out searching between June 1966 and January 2000. RESULTS: Twenty three randomised controlled trials were identified from the literature. Only three trials were sufficiently powered. Small to moderate beneficial effects of exercise treatment were found for pain, small beneficial effects on disability outcome measures, and moderate to great beneficial effects were observed according to patient global assessment of effect. It was not possible to obtain evidence on the content of exercise interventions, as studies were hampered by lack of attention to proper concealment, reporting of adverse effects, and long term effects of exercise treatment. The lack of standard outcomes measures is also noted. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates beneficial short term effects of exercise treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. However, the number of available studies is limited, and more research is needed to expand this recommendation. Specifically, additional trials should provide information on adherence, home based interventions, interaction with pharmacological treatments, functional outcomes measures relevant to exercise treatment in these patients, and long term effects. At present, doctors should recommend exercise to all patients with mild/moderate disease. Further study should be encouraged and exercise should be continued to be recommended as a mainstay of non-pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".