Clinical study on the effect of infrared radiation of a tiled stove on patients with hand osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of infrared radiation of a tiled stove on patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A randomized controlled crossover study was performed with 45 patients with hand OA. This sample was randomly assigned to two groups: group A [first 3 hours spent three times a week during 3 weeks in a heated tiled stove room ('Stove Period') and after 2 weeks without treatment this group was observed for another 3 weeks ('Control Period')]; and group B (first assigned to the control period and the stove period following the treatment-free period). Assessments included the visual analogue scale (VAS) for general pain, pain in the hands, and global hand function, grip strength, the Moberg Picking-up Test (MPUT), the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), and the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-item Short-Form Health Status Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: Fourteen (31%) patients improved on the VAS for general pain at the end of the tiled stove period as compared to 10 patients (22%) during the control period (p = 0.314, chi2-test). The AUSCAN pain domain showed a significant improvement after the tiled stove period (p = 0.034). Others pain parameters analysed (VAS for pain in hands and SF-36 bodily pain) showed moderate but not significant improvement (p = 0.682 and p = 0.237, respectively) compared to the control period. CONCLUSION: This study did not prove positive effects of the tiled stove exposure, although the numerical improvement in all pain measures suggests some possible positive effects on this symptom of hand 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".