Effectiveness of two different physical therapy programmes in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combined physical therapy interventions traditionally are frequently used in clinical practice for pain relief and to improve physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two different physical therapy programmes on patients with knee osteoarthritis. A total 62 patients who fulfilled clinical and radiological criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for primary knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated to two groups. After hot pack and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation applications, the first group was treated with isokinetic exercises and the second group with isotonic exercises. Both groups showed marked decreases of pain and increases of physical function, according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, immediately after treatment and three months later. The patients in both groups also showed a significant improvement in mental health scale of the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). In conclusion, the present study showed that both physical therapy intervention programmes are an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis, but isokinetic exercises work better.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".