Fit & Strong! Plus Trial Outcomes for Obese Older Adults with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness of standard Fit & Strong! (F&S!; targets physical activity [PA]) to Fit & Strong! Plus (F&S! Plus; targets PA and dietary weight loss) on weight, diet quality, and PA outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 413 overweight older adults with OA to the F&S! or F&S! Plus programs and assessed outcomes at 2 and 6 months. RESULTS: The F&S! Plus group lost -2.0 ± 0.2 kg (mean ± SE, 2% of starting weight) at 2 months that was maintained at 6 months. Two- and 6-month BMI and waist circumference improved significantly in the F&S! Plus group (p < .001). Diet quality at 2 months showed greater improvement in the F&S! Plus group: 4.6 ± 0.7 versus 2.0 ± 0.7, p = .006, with no significant difference between groups at 6 months. The F&S! Plus group differentially improved on PA engagement at 2 months and at 2 and 6 months in joint pain (6-month mean ± SE: -1.5 ± 0.3 vs -0.6 ± 0.3, p = .02), function (-4.7 ± 0.9 vs -1.5 ± 0.9, p = .01), and 6-min walk test (29.5 ± 5.1 m vs 14.1 ± 5.2 m, p = .04). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Adding a dietary weight loss component to F&S! achieved weight and waist circumference benefits that were maintained at 6 months. Importantly, the weight loss was accompanied by clinically meaningful improvements in OA symptoms and mobility. Future work should investigate minimum thresholds for weight reduction that improve long-term function in this population.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".