Precision Medicine Approach to Develop and Internally Validate Optimal Exercise and Weight‐Loss Treatments for Overweight and Obese Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From a Single‐Center Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To apply a precision medicine approach to determine the optimal treatment regime for participants in an exercise (E), dietary weight loss (D), and D + E trial for knee osteoarthritis that would maximize their expected outcomes. METHODS: Using data from 343 participants of the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, we applied 24 machine-learning models to develop individualized treatment rules on 7 outcomes: Short Form 36 physical component score, weight loss, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain/function/stiffness scores, compressive force, and interleukin-6 level. The optimal model was selected based on jackknife value function estimates that indicate improvement in the outcomes if future participants follow the estimated decision rule compared to the optimal single, fixed treatment model. RESULTS: Multiple outcome random forest was the optimal model for the WOMAC outcomes. For the other outcomes, list-based models were optimal. For example, the estimated optimal decision rule for weight loss indicated assigning the D + E intervention to participants with baseline weight not exceeding 109.35 kg and waist circumference above 90.25 cm, and assigning D to all other participants except those with a history of a heart attack. If applied to future participants, the optimal rule for weight loss is estimated to increase average weight loss to 11.2 kg at 18 months, contrasted with 9.8 kg if all participants received D + E (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The precision medicine models supported the overall findings from IDEA that the D + E intervention was optimal for most participants, but there was evidence that a subgroup of participants would likely benefit more from diet alone for 2 outcomes.
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 | 0.247 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".