The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part one: introduction, and mind-body exercise programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify effective mind-body exercise programs and provide clinicians and patients with updated, high-quality recommendations concerning non-traditional land-based exercises for knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A systematic search and adapted selection criteria included comparative controlled trials with mind-body exercise programs for patients with knee osteoarthritis. A panel of experts reached consensus on the recommendations using a Delphi survey. A hierarchical alphabetical grading system (A, B, C+, C, D, D+, D-) was used, based on statistical significance ( P < 0.5) and clinical importance (⩾15% improvement). RESULTS: The four high-quality studies identified demonstrated that various mind-body exercise programs are promising for improving the management of knee osteoarthritis. Hatha Yoga demonstrated significant improvement for pain relief (Grade B) and physical function (Grade C+). Tai Chi Qigong demonstrated significant improvement for quality of life (Grade B), pain relief (Grade C+) and physical function (Grade C+). Sun style Tai Chi gave significant improvement for pain relief (Grade B) and physical function (Grade B). CONCLUSION: Mind-body exercises are promising approaches to reduce pain, as well as to improve physical function and quality of life for individuals with knee osteoarthritis.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it