MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107723571 · doi:10.1186/s43166-020-00029-y

Do obese patients with primary knee osteoarthritis benefit from a single bout of moderate intensity aerobic exercise?

2020· article· en· W3107723571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reham M. Shaat, Tamer O. Elsaid, Aymen EL Baz, Rehan Monir, Shereen A. Machaly

Bibliographic record

VenueEgyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyAerobic exerciseWOMACInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Obesity and osteoarthritis are often concomitant. Both are accompanied by oxidative stress and stimulated inflammatory response. Exercise is considered a substantial treatment in rehabilitation of both conditions. Yet most of literature reported the benefits of regular exercising, while there is paucity about the effects of single low to moderate exercise session. This study aimed to investigate the possible potential effects of a single bout of moderate exercise in obese middle-aged individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Results Score of pain and Western Ontario and Mc-Master University (WOMAC) had been improved 24 h after exercise. Glutathione reductase (GR) activity increased post-exercise but decreased the next 24 h though remained higher than baseline. Blood glucose level was reduced post-exercise whereas blood lipids still uninfluenced by exercise. Markers of inflammation remained unchanged after exercise session. Conclusion A single bout moderate-intensity aerobic exercise is effective in improving pain and antioxidant activity among middle-aged obese patients with primary knee OA. Single bout of mild to moderate exercise may help in treatment of obese patients with KOA. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03927339

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEgyptian Rheumatology and RehabilitationSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207