Exercise and Osteoarthritis: Not Necessarily an All-or-Nothing Proposition!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often the mind-set at the start of a new calendar cycle — which may take the form of a New Year’s resolution — is to adopt healthy behaviors that promote and sustain good health and reduce the risk of significant morbidity and premature mortality. Three of the leading causes of mortality in modern society are coronary heart disease, cancer, and stroke1,2. A risk reduction strategy for cardiovascular disease includes improving control of known risk factors, for example, ameliorating an unfavorable lipid profile and enhancing control of hypertension and diabetes mellitus3. Similarly, the risk of malignancy is profoundly influenced by unhealthy consumption of tobacco and excessive alcohol4,5,6. Reduced levels of these products are frequent targets of health improvement resolutions to diminish one’s susceptibility to adverse cardiovascular events, incident cancer, and all-cause mortality. Thus the incorporation of regular forms of physical activity into one’s daily and weekly routine is frequently heralded at the beginning of the new year. Exercise has been demonstrated to reduce incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and overall mortality7,8,9,10,11. However, in the realm of the musculoskeletal system, is the relationship of exercise to arthritis health necessarily and unequivocally beneficial? In this issue of The Journal Fries, et al 12 implore the rheumatology community to advocate strongly for increasing physical activity in society at large as a strategy with clear-cut benefit for the prevention and treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Further, they call into question the accuracy and validity of the findings of a recent Journal article and accompanying editorial, which concluded that vigorous forms of exercise that entail breaking into a sweat actually increase the risk for future knee replacement13, … Address correspondence to Dr. Gelber; E-mail: agelber{at}jhmi.edu
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".