Effects of Impairment-Based Exercise on Performance of Specific Self-Reported Functional Tasks in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding how impairment-based exercises may improve performance of specific functional tasks in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the probability that participation in an impairment-based exercise program or the same impairment-based program supplemented with agility and perturbation training will improve patient-reported function on specific functional tasks. DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in the outpatient physical therapy clinic of a large, university-based health center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-three people with knee OA (122 women, 61 men) participated. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to either a group that received agility and perturbation training with standard exercise therapy or a group that received only the standard exercise. MEASUREMENTS: Specific functional items were taken from the physical function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Lower Extremity Function Scale, and the Activities of Daily Living Scale of the Knee Outcome Survey. RESULTS: The probability of self-reported improvement in a variety of specific functional tasks was low following participation in either of the exercise programs. When only participants with moderate to severe difficulty performing specific functional tasks were considered in the analysis, the probability of success improved but was still limited. LIMITATIONS: The results are generalizable only to self-reported assessment of performance of specific functional tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Impairment-based exercise may not be enough to make substantial improvement in performance of specific functional tasks. Task-specific exercise approaches need to be explored for people with knee 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".