Mediating Effect of Changes in Hand Impairments on Hand Function in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Exploring the Mechanisms of an Effective Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the effect of the Strengthening and Stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) exercise program on hand function was mediated by changes in the proposed active ingredients: strength, dexterity, and/or range of motion. METHODS: The SARAH intervention included exercises hypothesized to improve potential mediators of grip strength, pinch strength, wrist flexion, wrist extension, finger flexion, finger extension, thumb opposition, and dexterity, which would theoretically improve self-reported hand function. All variables were measured at baseline and at 4 and 12 months. Structural equation modeling was used to assess mediation on change in hand function via change in potential mediators. RESULTS: Change in grip strength partially mediated change in hand function. Grip strength mediated 19.4% (95% confidence interval 0.9%, 37.8%) of the treatment effect. CONCLUSION: Improvements in grip strength at 4 months are likely to mediate improved hand function at 12 months. The role of joint mobility exercises is less clear and is likely influenced by the choice of measurement tools for both mobility and function outcomes. More robust measurements of wrist and hand mobility for patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be necessary to determine the relationship between this variable and self-reported hand function. Using a large trial data set, we have demonstrated that techniques used to target grip strength are key active ingredients of the SARAH exercise program and mediate its effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".