O036 Sleep moderates but does not mediate aerobic benefits in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Sleep quality is often impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) and may influence and/or explain the effects of aerobic exercise on pain and function. This study explores the role of sleep as a potential moderator and mediator of the effect of aerobic and resistance exercise compared to resistance exercise only in hip OA. Methods Exploratory analyses from 193 participants (mean [SD] age = 62.3 [6.9] years, 68% female) in a RCT comparing aerobic and resistance exercise to resistance exercise. Outcomes were change in hip pain severity (11-point numerical rating scale, higher scores indicate worse pain, minimal clinically important difference, MCID = 1.8]) and function (68-point Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, higher scores indicate worse function, MCID = 6). The moderator (baseline) and mediator (3-month change) were the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score (higher scores indicate worse sleep). Results Moderator analyses found those with poor sleep at baseline had greater improved function with aerobic exercise and resistance exercise compared to resistance exercise (0.81 (95% CI 0·09 to 1·53). The effect of aerobic and resistance exercise compared to resistance exercise on pain and function via change in sleep was a mean improvement of -0.08 [95% -0.24 to 0.08] and -0.61 [95% -1.67 to 0.51] points, respectively. Conclusion Sleep quality moderated the effects between exercise programs such that an additional small benefit in function may be conferred with aerobic and resistance exercise compared to resistance exercise in those with poor sleep. There was no evidence that effects between exercise programs were mediated by changes in sleep quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".