Pilot Enhancement of the Arthritis Foundation Exercise Program with a Healthy Aging Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with arthritis or joint pain were targeted for a pilot program enhancing the Arthritis Foundation Exercise Program with the 10 Keys™ to Healthy Aging Program. Using a one-group, pre-post design, feasibility was examined and improvements in preventive behaviors, arthritis outcomes, and cardiometabolic outcomes were explored. A 10-week program was developed, instructors were recruited and trained, and four sites and 51 participants were recruited. Measures included attendance, adherence, satisfaction, preventive behaviors, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (pain and stiffness), glucose, and cholesterol. Three fourths of participants attended >50% of the sessions. At 6 and 12 months, more than one half performed the exercises 1 to 2 days per week, whereas 28% and 14% exercised 3 to 7 days per week, respectively. Participants (92%) rated the program as excellent/very good. Nonsignificant changes were observed in expected directions. Effect sizes were small for arthritis and cardiometabolic outcomes. This program engaged community partners, demonstrated feasibility, and showed improvements in some preventive behaviors and health risk profiles. [Res Gerontol Nurs. 2016; 9(3):123-132.].
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".