Knee bracing for medial compartment osteoarthritis: effects on proprioception and postural control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a functional knee brace specifically designed for patients with varus gonarthrosis on measures of proprioception and postural control. SUBJECTS: Fourteen men and six women (aged 59+/-9 yr) with measurable varus alignment and osteoarthritis of the knee medial compartment. METHODS: Proprioception was assessed in the sitting position using an isokinetic dynamometer and was quantified as the ability to replicate target knee-joint angles. Postural control was assessed with a force platform using tests of single-limb standing balance performed, while the patient was standing on a stable surface and standing on foam, and was quantified as the total length of the path of the centre of pressure. All tests were performed with and without the patient's own custom-fit valgus brace. RESULTS: Proprioception was significantly improved following application of the brace [mean difference=0.7 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.2 to 1.1 degrees ). Postural control was not significantly affected by the use of the brace during the stable surface test (mean difference=2.6 cm, 95% CI=-4.3 to 9.5 cm) or the foam surface test (mean difference=0.9 cm, 95% CI=-7.5 to 9.4 cm). CONCLUSION: Although enhanced proprioception may be partially responsible for reported improvements with the use of a brace, the present findings call into question the functional importance of the small changes observed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".