Group-mediated Physical Activity Promotion and Mobility in Sedentary Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Results from the IMPACT-Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a group-mediated cognitive behavioral exercise intervention (GMCB) with traditional center-based exercise therapy (TRAD) on objectively assessed levels of physical activity (PA) and mobility in sedentary patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The Improving Maintenance of Physical Activity in Knee Osteoarthritis Trial-Pilot (IMPACT-P) was a 12-month, 2-arm, single-blind, randomized controlled pilot study designed to compare the effects of GMCB and TRAD on 80 sedentary patients with knee OA with self-reported difficulty in daily activities [mean age 63.5 yrs, 84% women, mean body mass index (BMI) 32.7 kg/m(2)]. Objective assessments of PA (LIFECORDER Plus Accelerometer) and mobility (400-m walk) were obtained at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months by study personnel blinded to participants' treatment assignment. RESULTS: Intent to treat 2 (treatment: GMCB and TRAD) × 2 (time: 3 mos and 12 mos) analyses of covariance of controlling for baseline, age, sex, and BMI-adjusted change in the outcomes demonstrated that the GMCB intervention yielded significantly greater increases in PA (p < 0.01) and a nonsignificant yet more favorable improvement in mobility (p = 0.09) relative to TRAD. Partial correlation analyses also revealed that change in PA was significantly correlated with the 400-m walk performance at 3-month (r = -0.51, p < 0.01) and 12-month (r = -0.40, p < 0.01) followup assessments. CONCLUSION: Findings from the IMPACT-P trial suggest that the GMCB treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement in PA and nonsignificant yet more favorable change in mobility relative to TRAD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".