What type of exercise is most effective for people with knee osteoarthritis and co-morbid obesity?: The TARGET randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different exercise types may yield different outcomes in osteoarthritis (OA) subgroups. The objective was to directly compare effectiveness of two exercise programs for people with medial knee OA and co-morbid obesity. DESIGN: were recruited from the community. Interventions were home-based non-weight bearing (NWB) quadriceps strengthening or weight bearing (WB) functional exercise for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were change in overall knee pain (numeric rating scale, range 0-10) and difficulty with physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, 0-68) over 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included other pain measures, physical function, quality-of-life, global changes, physical performance, and lower-limb muscle strength. RESULTS: 123 (96%) participants were retained. There was no evidence of a between-group difference in change in pain (mean difference 0.73 units (95% confidence intervals (0.05,1.50)) or function (2.80 units (-1.17,6.76)), with both groups reporting improvements. For secondary outcomes, the WB group had greater improvement in quality-of-life (-0.043 units (-0.085,-0.001)) and more participants reporting global improvement (overall: relative risk 1.40 (0.98,2.01); pain 1.47 (0.97,2.24); function 1.43 (1.04,1.98). Although adverse events were minor, more NWB group participants reported ≥1 adverse event (26/66 (39%) vs 14/62 (23%), p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Both exercise types similarly improved primary outcomes of pain and function and can be recommended for people with knee OA and obesity. WB exercise may be preferred given fewer adverse events and potential additional benefits on some secondary outcomes. REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry #12617001013358, 14/7/2017).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".