The role of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients affected by knee osteoarthritis: an exploratory randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) compared to standard of care in improving pain, physical function, and stiffness in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA) over six months. Secondary outcomes included multidimensional frailty and quality of life. DESIGN: An exploratory, multicentre, randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Five European geriatric centres in Italy, Germany, Turkiye and the Czech Republic. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy older adults (mean age 76.1 ± 6.8 years; 80% female) with knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence Grades 1-2) were randomized into two groups: CGA (n = 35) or standard of care (n = 35). INTERVENTION: The CGA group underwent a multidimensional geriatric assessment and intervention, identifying impairments and tailoring interventions accordingly, while the control group received standard of care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was improvement in pain, stiffness, and functional limitations measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) over six months. Secondary outcomes included changes in multidimensional frailty (Multidimensional Prognostic Index, MPI), quality of life (SF-36), and adherence to interventions. RESULTS: The CGA group showed a non-significant improvement in total WOMAC scores (-4.49 ± 3.40, p = 0.19), with slight reductions in pain (-1.12 ± 0.96) and functional limitations (-3.26 ± 2.21). MPI slightly improved (-0.02 ± 0.04, p = 0.69), but no significant changes were observed in SF-36 scores. No falls, hospitalizations, or severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: CGA may offer potential benefits for managing knee OA in older adults, particularly for pain and function, though statistical significance was not achieved. Larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05659979.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".