MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024031688 · doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03339-6

Osteoarthritis physical activity care pathway (OA-PCP): results of a feasibility trial

2020· article· en· W3024031688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelli D. Allen, Maihan B. Vu, Leigh F. Callahan, Rebecca J. Cleveland, Abigail L. Gilbert, Yvonne M. Golightly, Ida Griesemer, Kimberlea Grimm, Derek Hales, David Hu, Katie F. Huffman, Amanda E. Nelson, Ami Pathak, Jennifer Rees, Zachary D. Rethorn, Anne E. Wandishin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyWOMACHelpfulnessOsteoarthritisPhysical activityAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To obtain information on feasibility and acceptability, as well as preliminary data on efficacy, of an Osteoarthritis Physical activity Care Pathway (OA-PCP). METHODS: This was a single group pilot study involving 60 participants with symptomatic, physician diagnosed knee or hip OA, recruited from primary care clinics. Participants self-reported completing less than 150 min per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at baseline. The 3-month OA-PCP intervention involved 3 physical activity (PA) coaching calls (focused on goal setting), three check-in emails and linkage with community-based or online resources to support PA. Efficacy outcomes were collected at baseline and 4-month follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome was minutes of MVPA, assessed via accelerometer. Secondary outcomes included minutes of light intensity activity, sedentary minutes, step counts, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain and function subscales. Participants were also asked to rate the helpfulness of the OA-PCP intervention on a scale of 0-10. Differences in efficacy outcomes between baseline and 4-month follow-up were assessed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Among participants beginning the study, 88% completed follow-up assessments and ≥ 90% completed each of the intervention calls. Average daily minutes of MVPA was 8.0 at baseline (standard deviation (SD) = 9.9) and 8.9 at follow-up (SD = 12.1, p = 0.515). There were no statistically significant changes in light intensity activity, sedentary time or step counts. The mean WOMAC pain score improved from 8.1 (SD = 3.6) at baseline to 6.2 (SD = 3.8) at follow-up (p < 0.001); the mean WOMAC function score improved from 26.2 (SD = 13.2) to 20.2 (SD = 12.5; p < 0.001). The mean rating of helpfulness was 7.6 (SD = 2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the study, and participants reported clinically relevant improvements in pain and function. PA metrics did not improve substantially. Based on these results and participant feedback, modifications including enhanced self-monitoring are being made to increase the impact of the OA-PCP intervention on PA behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03780400, December 19, 2018.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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