The Effects of a Warm Whirlpool Bath on Pain and Stiffness of Patients with Chronic Stroke Induced Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] This study set out to investigate the effects of leg immersion in warm water on pain, and stiffness of patients with stroke-induced chronic osteoarthritis. [Subjects] Forty-four patients with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to either the whirlpool group (n=24) or the control group (n=20). [Methods] Subjects in the whirlpool group immersed their legs in a whirlpool bath at 40 °C for 40 minutes 5 times a week for 8 weeks. The control group of patients was instructed to perform activities as usual without using a whirlpool bath. Pre-immersion and post-immersion measurements of the Western Ontario and McMaster University arthritis index (WOMAC)-pain and stiffness indexes were compared to determine the effects of the intervention. The paired t-test was performed to test the significance of differences before and after the experiment. The independent t-test was conducted in order to test the significance of differences between the whirlpool and control groups. Statistical significance was accepted for values of p<0.05. [Results] The WOMAC-pain score, and stiffness index were significantly lower after the intervention. [Conclusion] Immersion of the lower extremities in a whirlpool bath was beneficial for patients with chronic stroke-induced knee osteoarthritis.
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".