Reducing knee pain and loading with a gait retraining program for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for a randomized feasibility trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to 1) determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of a gait retraining program on decreasing knee pain and impact loading in people with knee osteoarthritis, and 2) provide an estimate of treatment effects for a gait retraining program compared to a traditional walking program. Methods: Forty individuals with knee osteoarthritis will be enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, feasibility trial with two parallel groups. Participants will be randomly allocated to a gait retraining program aimed to decrease peak axial acceleration of the lower leg (i.e., tibia) by 20% or a traditional walking program. Both programs involve 8 sessions of walking on a treadmill. Feasibility will be assessed with recruitment, enrollment, and retention rates, and number of adverse events and unanticipated problems. Treatment effects will be estimated with measures of knee pain and impact loading collected at baseline, follow-up (<1 week post-intervention), and retention (≥1 month post-intervention) visits. Knee pain will be evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and impact loading will be measured during walking with three-dimensional motion analysis. Conclusion: Findings of this study will inform the feasibility of a full-scale RCT investigating the efficacy of a gait retraining program for people with knee osteoarthritis. Trial registration: (NCT04148807).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it