Randomized controlled trial on low level laser therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Low level laser therapy (LLLT) offers promising symptomatic relief of osteoarthritic (OA) pain. We examined efficacy of active LLLT versus sham LLLT on finger joints and three superficial nerves. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: OA-patients randomly assigned, received three treatments per week for 6 weeks of LLLT (n = 42) or sham LLLT (n = 46). RESULTS: Pain relief, morning stiffness, and functional status did not significantly improve for LLLT versus placebo. No significant differences were found in finger range of motion, except carpometacarpal opposition (P = 0.011), grip strength, and patient global assessment which improved for active LLLT participants (P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: LLLT is no better than placebo at reducing pain, morning stiffness, or improving functional status for OA-hand patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".