Feasibility of exercise and weight management for people with hip osteoarthritis and overweight or obesity: A pilot study
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: Determine the feasibility of a 6-month exercise and weight management intervention for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). Design: participated. Six consultations with a physiotherapist and six consultations with a dietitian via videoconferencing over six months to deliver, and support, an exercise program and a ketogenic very low-calorie diet with meal replacements. Recruitment rate and retention rate, adherence, adverse events and intervention acceptability were assessed. Overall hip pain, physical function and body weight were assessed via numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale (WOMAC, 0-68) and home-scales respectively, at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results: Eighteen (11% of 157 people screened) participants were enrolled and 16 (89%) completed 6-month assessments. Participants reported acceptable adherence to the intervention. Most (88%) participants were "extremely satisfied" with the intervention. Ten minor adverse events were exercise related. Overall hip pain reduced by -1.9 units (95%CI -2.8 to -0.9) at 3 months and by -3.3 (-4.3 to -2.2) at 6 months. Physical function improved by -8.5 units (95%CI -13.2 to -3.6) and -14.2 (-18.1 to -7.5) at 3 and 6 months respectively. Body weight reduced by 9.8% [95%CI -12% to -8%] and 11.3% [-13.6% to -9%] at 3 and 6 months respectively. Conclusions: The feasibility of a large clinical trial evaluating this exercise and weight management intervention is supported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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