Changes in Body Weight and Knee Pain in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis <scp>Three‐and‐a‐Half</scp> Years After Completing Diet and Exercise Interventions: Follow‐Up Study for a <scp>Single‐Blind</scp>, <scp>Single‐Center</scp>, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine whether long‐term diet (D) and exercise (E) interventions, alone or in combination (D+E), have beneficial effects for older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA) 3.5 years after the interventions end. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a subset (n = 94) of the first 184 participants who had successfully completed the Intensive Diet and Exercise in Arthritis (IDEA) trial (n = 399) and who consented to follow‐up testing. Participants were older (age ≥55 years), overweight, and obese adults with radiographic and symptomatic knee OA in at least 1 knee who completed 1.5‐year D+E (n = 27), D (n = 35), or E (n = 32) interventions and returned for 5‐year follow‐up testing an average of 3.5 years later. Results During the 3.5‐years following the interventions, weight regain in D+E and D was 5.9 kg (7%) and 3.1 kg (4%), respectively, with a 1‐kg (1%) weight loss in E. Compared to baseline, weight (D+E –3.7 kg [P = 0.0007], D –5.8 kg [P < 0.0001], E –2.9 kg [P = 0.003]) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale scores (D+E –1.2 [P = 0.03], D –1.5 [P = 0.001], E –1.6 [P = 0.0008]) were lower in each group at the 5‐year follow‐up. The effect of group assignment at the 5‐year follow‐up was significant for body weight, with D being less than E (–3.5 kg; P = 0.04). Conclusion Older adults with knee OA who completed 1.5‐year D or D+E interventions experienced partial weight regain 3.5 years later; yet, relative to baseline, they preserved statistically significant changes in weight loss and reductions in knee pain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".