Effects of Covertly Measured Home Exercise Adherence on Patient Outcomes Among Older Adults With Chronic Knee Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of home exercise adherence and the degree to which adherence influences changes in patient outcomes is limited by the use of self-reported measures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between adherence to a home strengthening program, covertly measured by accelerometers in ankle cuff weights, and changes in self-reported pain, physical function, and knee extensor strength among people with chronic knee pain. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a clinical measurement study in 54 adults, aged 45 years or older, with chronic knee pain who completed a 12-week, home-based quadriceps-strengthening program. A triaxial accelerometer was concealed in the ankle cuff weight used for exercises to assess exercise adherence. Associations between exercise adherence and changes in pain and function (measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and peak isometric knee extensor strength were examined using mixed-effects and linear regression models and fractional polynomials. RESULTS: Exercise adherence declined from a median of 90% (interquartile range, 70%-100%) in weeks 0 to 2 to 65% (interquartile range, 25%-90%) in weeks 10 to 12. Significant improvements were observed in knee pain (mean change, -3.2 units; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.4, -3.9 units), function (mean change, -10.1 units; 95% CI: -7.8, -12.4 units), and knee extensor strength (mean change, 0.34 Nm/kg; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.42 Nm/kg) across the group over the same period. Exercise adherence was not associated with changes in pain, function, and knee extensor strength over 2-week periods or over the entire 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: .
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".