MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905677665 · doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2369-z

Can we improve cognitive function among adults with osteoarthritis by increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour? Secondary analysis of the MONITOR-OA study

2018· article· en· W2905677665 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan S. Falck, John R. Best, Linda Li, Patrick Chan, Lynne M. Feehan, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisCognitionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialSports medicineCognitive declineGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineDementiaAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests osteoarthritis is a risk factor for cognitive decline. One potential reason is 87% of adults with osteoarthritis are inactive, and low moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and high sedentary behaviour are each risk factors for cognitive decline. Thus, we investigated whether a community-based intervention to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour could improve cognitive function among adults with osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a six month, proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial of a community-based, technology-enabled counselling program to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour among adults with knee osteoarthritis. The Immediate Intervention (n = 30) received a Fitbit® Flex™ and four bi-weekly activity counselling sessions; the Delayed Intervention (n = 31) received the same intervention two months later. We assessed episodic memory and working memory using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery. Between-group differences (Immediate Intervention vs. Delayed Intervention) in cognitive performance were evaluated following the primary intervention (i.e., Baseline - 2 Months) using intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The intervention did not significantly improve cognitive function; however, we estimated small average improvements in episodic memory for the Immediate Intervention vs. Delayed Intervention (estimated mean difference: 1.27; 95% CI [- 9.27, 11.81]; d = 0.10). CONCLUSION: This small study did not show that a short activity promotion intervention improved cognitive health among adults with osteoarthritis. However, the effects of increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour are likely to be small and thus we recommend subsequent studies use larger sample sizes and measure changes in cognitive function over longer intervals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: NCT02315664 ; registered 12 December, 2014; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02315664?cond=NCT02315664&rank=1.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207