Can pain influence the proprioception and the motor behavior in subjects with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic disease, usually characterized by pain, which is associated with reduced muscle strength, disability and progressive loss of function. However, the pain influence over proprioception and motor behaviour remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of the study was to identify the levels of pain, the proprioceptive acuity and the pattern of muscle recruitment during stair ascent and descent in elderly patients with mild and moderate osteoarthritis (OA) compared to healthy subjects. METHODS: The study participants included 11 healthy elderly subjects (7 women and 4 men) and 31 elderly patients with knee OA (19 women and 12 men). The functional capacity was assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index; the pain was evaluated by Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBS) and pressure pain threshold (PPT); the proprioceptive acuity was based on the joint position sense evaluated by electrogoniometer; and the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the major muscles of the lower limb were evaluated during a task of stair ascent and descent of 15 cm. For statistical analysis it was used Statistic for Windows software (StatSoft Inc., version 5.0). Data from the WOMAC index, WBS, the proprioceptive acuity and IEMG (for each muscle in each phase) were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and data from PPT was used Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Higher scores were found in the WOMAC index and WBS whereas lower scores were seen in PPT in patients with knee OA compared to healthy subjects. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the proprioceptive acuity and EMG results of most muscles analyzed between the groups. CONCLUSION: The presence of pain does not influence the proprioception and the motor behavior of the thigh muscles during stair ascent and descent in subjects with mild and moderate 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".