MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595785254 · doi:10.1177/2325967117694334

Is Home-Based, High-Intensity Interval Training Cycling Feasible and Safe for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis?

2017· article· en· W2595785254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Keogh, Josephine Grigg, Christopher J. Vertullo

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBond University
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyHigh-intensity interval trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Interval trainingRandomized controlled trialKnee painSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease affecting the knee joint of many middle-aged and older adults. As OA symptoms typically involve knee pain and stiffness, individuals with knee OA are often insufficiently physically active, have low levels of physical function, and are at increased risk of other comorbidities and reduced quality of life. While moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) cycling is often recommended, little is known about the feasibility, safety, and benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) cycling for this population, even though the feasibility, safety, and benefits of HIIT have been demonstrated in other chronic disease groups. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and safety of home-based HIIT and MICT cycling in middle-aged and older adults with knee OA. A secondary objective was to gain some insight into the relative efficacy of HIIT and MICT for improving health status (pain, stiffness, and disability), muscle function, and body composition in this population. This study protocol is being published separately to allow a detailed description of the research methods, explain the rationale for choosing the methodological details, and to stimulate consideration of the best means to simulate a research protocol that is relevant to a real-life treatment environment. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized pilot study protocol. METHODS: This trial sought to recruit 40 middle-aged and older adults with knee OA. Participants were randomly allocated to either continuous (MICT) or HIIT home-based cycle training programs, with both programs requiring the performance of 4 cycling sessions (approximately 25 minutes per session) each week. Participants were measured at baseline and postintervention (8 weeks). Feasibility and safety were assessed by adherence rate, dropout rate, and number of adverse events. The relative efficacy of the cycling programs was investigated by 2 knee OA health status questionnaires (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scale[WOMAC] and the Lequesne Index) as well as the timed up and go, sit to stand, preferred gait speed, and body composition. DISCUSSION: This pilot study appears to be the first study assessing the feasibility and safety of a home-based HIIT training program for middle-aged and older adults with knee OA. As HIIT has been demonstrated to be more effective than MICT for improving aspects of health status, body composition, and/or muscular function in other chronic disease groups, the current study has the potential to improve patient outcomes and inform the design of future randomized controlled trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207