Hospitalbased versus homebased proprioceptive and strengthening exercise programs in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish the effects of hospital- and home-based proprioceptive and strengthening exercise programs on proprioception, pain, and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Sixty patients with bilateral knee OA were randomly allocated into either a home-based or hospital-based exercise program. Hospital-based exercise group (n=30, mean age 50.23±9.07 years) received functional training program with proprioceptive ability, ice, and home exercises. Home-based exercise group (n=30, mean age 54.4±7.9 years) had a program of ice and home exercises. Treatment programs was conducted 5 days per week for 6 weeks (30 sessions). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Monitorized Functional Squat System-Proprioceptive Test (MFSS), timed performance test (TUG), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for the intensity of pain were used to quantify the variables. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement when pre- and post-treatment results were compared for pain intensity, WOMAC, and TUG test scores (p<0.05). No statistically significant improvement was found in proprioception of the home-based group (p>0.05). Hospital-based group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MFSS, TUG test, and VAS in activity when compared with the home-based group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Both hospital- and home-based exercise programs decreased joint symptoms and improved function in patients with knee OA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".