Does choice of angular velocity affect pain level during isokinetic strength testing of knee osteoarthritis patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thigh musculature strength assessment in individuals with knee osteoarthritis is routinely performed in rehabilitative settings. A factor that may influence results is pain experienced during testing. AIM: To assess whether pain experienced during isokinetic testing in individuals with knee osteoarthritis is dependent on the angular velocity prescribed. DESIGN: Experimental, repeated measures. SETTING: University laboratory. POPULATION: Thirty-five individuals (19 women, 16 men) with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. METHODS: Participants performed three randomized sets of five maximal concentric extension-flexion repetitions at 60°/s, 90°/s and 120°/s. Pain intensity was measured immediately after the completion of each set. Strength outcomes for each set were the average peak moment. RESULTS: Across gender, pain level was not significantly affected by testing velocity (P=0.18, η(p)(2) =0.05). There was a trend of women reporting more pain than men across all testing velocities, however this comparison did not reach statistical significance (P=0.18, η(p)(2)=0.05). There was a significant main effect of testing velocity on strength, with the highest level attained at 60°/s. However, no difference in strength was noted when testing was performed at 90°/s or 120°/s. CONCLUSION: A large variation in pain scores within and across conditions and gender was noted, suggesting that at the current stage: 1) isokinetic angular velocity prescription be performed on an individual patient basis; and 2) improvements in the manner pain is recorded are needed in order to reduce the variations in pain scores. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Individual prescription of angular velocity may be necessary for optimal strength output and reduction of pain during effort exertion in this patient population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".