Effects of Noninvasive Interactive Neurostimulation on Symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation used as an adjunct to usual care, on pain and other symptoms in adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: Randomized, sham-controlled trial. SETTING: A university in the southern United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven (37) adults with knee osteoarthritis (based on American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria). INTERVENTIONS: Seventeen (17) noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (active or sham) sessions over 8 weeks with a week 12 follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven-point numeric rating scale for weekly pain; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), patient global assessment, and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) completed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12. RESULTS: For the main outcome, pain, the differences between the groups over time did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.05). However, a clinically important reduction in pain (defined as a 2-point or 30% reduction on an 11-point numeric rating scale) was maintained at week 12 by the active noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group (2.17 points, 34.55% reduction) but not the sham group (1.63, 26.04% reduction). Pain improved over time in participants regardless of group membership (numeric rating scale average pain, p = 0.002; numeric rating scale worst pain, p < 0.001; and WOMAC pain, p < 0.001), as did WOMAC function, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC total score (all p < 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups over time for the SF-36 Vitality scale, F (3, 105) = 3.54, p = 0.017. In addition, the active device group improved on the patient global assessment from baseline to week 8 compared to the sham device group, F (1, 35) = 4.025, p = 0.053. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, clinically important reductions in knee pain were maintained at week 12 in the active, but not the sham, noninvasive interactive neurostimulation group. Further study of this noninvasive therapy is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".