The effect of action observation training on knee joint function and gait ability in total knee replacement patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate that effect of action observation training (AOT) on knee joint function and balance in total knee replacement (TKR) patients. The subjects consisted of eighteen post-TKR patients. All participants underwent conventional physical therapy. In addition, patients in the AOT group (n= 9) were asked to observe video clips showing daily actions and to imitate them afterward. Patients in the control group (n= 9) were asked to execute the same actions as patients in the AOT group. Outcome measures Western Ontario and Mc-Master Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) included pain, stiffness, function and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. After intervention, patients in the AOT group score better than patients in the control group. After TUG test, patients in the AOT group and control group were no significant difference between two groups. In addition to conventional physical therapy, AOT is effective in the rehabilitation of post-TKR patients. Action observation training is considered conducive to improving knee functions and ameliorating pain and stiffness, of patients who underwent TKR.
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) | 0.000 | 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".