Feasibility of the SOAR (Stop OsteoARthritis) program
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: Assess the feasibility of a virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided knee health program (SOAR) that targets self-management of knee health and osteoarthritis risk after an activity-related knee injury. Design: In this quasi-experimental feasibility study, individuals with varied lived experience of knee trauma completed a 4-week SOAR program. This included: 1) Knee Camp (group education, 1:1 exercise and activity goal-setting); 2) weekly home-based exercise and activity program with tracking, and; 3) weekly 1:1 physiotherapy-guided action-planning. SOAR program feasibility was assessed with implementation (attrition, adherence, intervention fidelity), practicality (adverse events, goal completion), acceptability and efficacy (change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Partner in Health Scale (PHS)) outcomes. Descriptive statistics, disaggregated by gender, were calculated. Results: Thirty participants (60% women, median (min-max) age 30 years (19-50), time from injury 5.6 years (1.2-25.2)) were enrolled. No participant attrition or adverse events were reported, and 90% of mandatory program components were completed. Participants rated their adherence at 80%, and 96% of exercise-therapy and 95% of activity goals were fully or partially achieved. Both women and men reported significant group mean (95%CI) improvements in GLTEQ scores (women: 22 METS (6,37), men: 31 METS (8,54)), while women alone reported improvements in PHS (-7 (-11,-3) and PSFS (1.7 (0.6,2.8) scores. Conclusion: The SOAR program is feasible for persons at various timepoints post-knee trauma, and gender may be an important consideration for SOAR implementation and assessment. A randomized controlled trial to assess intervention efficacy is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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