MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366978367 · doi:10.1016/j.ynpai.2023.100130

Therapeutic exercise interventions in rat models of arthritis

2023· review· en· W4366978367 on OpenAlexafffund
Hannah Derue, Alfredo Ribeiro‐da‐Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Pain · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineArthritisPhysical therapyPsychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arthritis is the leading cause of musculoskeletal pain and disability worldwide. Nearly 50% of individuals over the age of 65 have arthritis, which contributes to limited function, articular pain, physical inactivity, and diminished quality of life. Therapeutic exercise is often recommended in clinical settings for patients experiencing arthritic pain, however, there is little practical guidance regarding the use of therapeutic exercise to alleviate arthritic musculoskeletal pain. Rodent models of arthritis allow researchers to control experimental variables, which cannot be done with human participants, providing an opportunity to test therapeutic approaches in preclinical models. This literature review provides a summary of published findings in therapeutic exercise interventions in rat models of arthritis as well as gaps in the existing literature. We reveal that preclinical research in this field has yet to adequately investigate the impact of experimental variables in therapeutic exercise including their modality, intensity, duration, and frequency on joint pathophysiology and pain outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of PainSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207