The effects of sensorimotor training on knee proprioception and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of a sensorimotor training programme in osteoarthritic patients. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: Kinesiology laboratory at School of Physical Therapy. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned to the training group and the control group. Only 29 patients (training group, 15; control group, 14) completed the study. INTERVENTION: The training group underwent a sensorimotor training programme using a sling suspension system complemented by a routine physical therapy. The control group underwent a routine physical therapy. MAIN MEASURES: Active joint repositioning, functional testings, and self-reported function with the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Arthritis Index before and after the eight-week intervention. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to the improvement in proprioception as measured by active joint repositioning (the changes in the absolute error were 1.9+/- 1.7 degrees , training group versus 0.1 +/- 2.8 degrees , control group (P<0.05), and in self-reported functional difficulty (33.2 +/-35.1, training group versus 8.0+/- 10.2, control group; P<0.05)). There was no significant difference between the two groups in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: A sensorimotor training using a sling suspension system improved the patients' proprioception in the knee joints and their self-reported function. Thus, these exercises may serve as an exercise programme for patients with 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".