A Comparative Study between the effect of Agility and Pertubation Training Versus Conventional Exercise in Improving Functional Status in Physically Active Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : To compare the effect of agility and perturbation training with conventional exercises and conventional exercises alone in improving functional status in physically active individuals with knee osteoarthritis Materials and Method : This study is to be conducted with 60 physically active subjects of knee osteoarthritis and were randomly assigned into two equal groups (experimental and control group).The pre-test measurements is taken for both the groups with WOMAC SCALE and TIMED GET UP AND GO TEST. Then group A (experimental group) allotted for agility and perturbation training and group B (control group) allotted for conventional exercise for the period of 6 weeks. After the end of 6 weeks post-test measurements taken as similar to the pre-test measurement and the result obtained are compared. Out come measures : Western Ontario McMaster University Scale Timed get Up and go Test Result : Result of the study concluded that there is a significant difference in both the groups. However, the agility and perturbation group showed much significant differences in improving the functional status of OA subjects as compared with the control group. Conclusion : According to the results of present study agility and perturbation exercises significantly improving the functional status of OA subjects as compared with the control group. Adding agility and perturbation training techniques to exercise programs has a significant effect on knee stability and general function in older individuals with knee OA as observed for younger, athletic individuals.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".