Effect of Home Exercise of Quadriceps on Knee Osteoarthritis Compared with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of home-based exercise on knee osteoarthritis among Japanese in comparison with that of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: An open-labeled, randomized, controlled, multiclinic trial compared home-based quadriceps exercise with NSAIDs. Treatments were basically evaluated after 8 wks and compared with the baseline scores. Outcomes were evaluated with a set of psychometric measurements including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), and pain with the visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients entered this trial to provide the baseline data. After 21 cases withdrew, the final number analyzed was 121 cases: 63 for the exercise group and 58 for the NSAIDs group. Between these two groups, there was no significant difference in gender, age, body height and weight, body mass index, or each score at baseline. The subjects in both groups showed improvements in all scores at the end of intervention. The difference in improvement rate of each score between the two groups was not statistically significant, though the mean rank score measured with JKOM in the exercise was slightly better than that of the NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise using quadriceps strengthening improves knee osteoarthritis no less than NSAIDs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".