MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158983839 · doi:10.1155/2013/479142

Moving with Ease: Feldenkrais Method Classes for People with Osteoarthritis

2013· article· en· W2158983839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert H. Webb, L. Eduardo Cofré Lizama, Mary P. Galea

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyTimed Up and Go testPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)Stair climbingMedicineBalance (ability)Gait analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Objective. To investigate the effects of Feldenkrais Method classes on gait, balance, function, and pain in people with osteoarthritis. Design. Prospective study with pre-/postmeasures. Setting. Community. Participants. Convenience sample of 15 community-dwelling adults with osteoarthritis (mean age 67 years) attending Feldenkrais Method classes. Intervention. Series of Feldenkrais Method classes, two classes/week for 30 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis scale, Human Activity Profile, stair climbing test, 6-minute walk test, timed up-and-go test, Four Square Step Test (4SST), gait analysis, and assessment of quality of life (AQoL). Results. Participants improved on the 4SST and on some gait parameters. They also reported a greater ease of movement. Conclusions. A 30-week series of Feldenkrais classes held twice per week was feasible in the community setting. The lessons led to improvements in performance of the four square step test and changes in gait.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207