Pain Informed Movement for people with knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Conservative pain management strategies for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have limited effectiveness and do not employ a pain-mechanism informed approach. Pain Informed Movement is a novel intervention combining mind-body techniques with neuromuscular exercise and pain neuroscience education (PNE), aimed at improving endogenous pain modulation. While the feasibility and acceptability of this program has been previously established, it now requires further evaluation in comparison to standard KOA care. Design: This protocol describes the design of a pilot two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded qualitative component. The primary outcome is complete follow-up rate. With an allocation ratio of 1:1, 66 participants (33/arm) (age ≥40 years, KOA diagnosis or meeting KOA NICE criteria, and pain intensity ≥3/10), will be randomly allocated to two groups that will both receive 8 weeks of twice weekly in-person exercise sessions. Those randomized to Pain Informed Movement will receive PNE and mind-body technique instruction provided initially as videos and integrated into exercise sessions. The control arm will receive neuromuscular exercise and standard OA education. Assessment will include clinical questionnaires, physical and psychophysical tests, and blood draws at baseline and program completion. Secondary outcomes are program acceptability, burden, rate of recruitment, compliance and adherence, and adverse events. Participants will be invited to an online focus group at program completion. Conclusion: The results of this pilot RCT will serve as the basis for a larger multi-site RCT aimed at determining the program's effectiveness with the primary outcome of assessing the mediating effects of descending modulation on changes in 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".