Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in Relation to Hamstring and Quadriceps Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] To assess the effect of hamstring and quadriceps strengthening exercises on pain intensity, gait velocity, maximum isometric strength, and activities of daily living of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). [Subjects and Methods] A total of 20 patients with knee OA, 50 to 65 years of age (57.65 ± 4.78 years), received hot packs, strengthening exercises for the quadriceps and the hamstring muscles and stretching exercises for hamstring muscles. Outcome measures included: the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index questionnaire (WOMAC) scores for assessing health status and health outcomes of knee OA; self-reported pain intensity scores, measured using a visual analogue scale; the 50 ft walk test (a measure of gait velocity and function); and handheld dynamometry (a tool used to measure maximum isometric strength of knee extension and flexion). [Results] There was a significant difference between pre- and post-intervention measures of pain intensity, 50 ft walk times, hamstring strength, and quadriceps strength. Significant differences in WOMAC measures were also observed in the subscales of pain, stiffness and physical function, as well as WOMAC total scores. [Conclusion] Strengthening the hamstring muscles in addition to strengthening the quadriceps muscles proved to be beneficial for perceived knee pain, range of motion, and decreasing the limitation of functional performance of patients with knee 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".