MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382204897 · doi:10.25035/ijare.14.01.04

An Exploratory Study of Aquatic Walking on Symptoms and Functional Limitations in Persons with Knee Osteoarthritis: Part 1

2023· article· en· W4382204897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John M. Coons, Brandon Grubbs, Vaughn Barry, Ryan T. Conners, Sandra Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aquatic Research and Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisWOMACPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationKnee painRating scalePreferred walking speedTreadmillGaitPsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper represents Part 1 of a study that explored the effects of an underwater treadmill (UT) walking program on pain and function in adults with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), numerical rating scale (NRS), timed up-and-go (TUG), and 10-m walk were assessed in 6 adults (62.7 ±14.2 years) who participated in an 8-week (3x/wk) UT walking intervention based on the Arthritis Foundation’s Walk With Ease (WWE) program. Walking pace was self-selected, and walking duration of each session was increased from 10 to 45 minutes throughout the study. Knee pain and function were assessed pre-control (PRC), pre-intervention (PRI) and post-intervention (PST). NRS improved from PRC and PRI to PST (p = .03, d = .37). WOMAC subscale scores of pain, (d = .36); stiffness (d = .44); pain during daily activities (d = .41); and total scores (d = .42) improved (p < .05) from PRC to PST. Self-selected walking speed increased concurrently with decreased knee pain (NRS) from PRI to PST. The results support the WWE as a model for an UT walking program for improving knee pain in KOA.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Aquatic Research and EducationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207