Eccentric versus Concentric Contraction of Quadriceps Muscles in Treatment of Chondromalacia Patellae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chondromalacia patellae is a disorder often accompanied by patellofemoral instability. This can be simply a reflex inhibition of the quadriceps muscle secondary to pain. The eccentric and concentric contraction exercises are beneficial in strengthening of the quadriceps muscles and treatment of chondromalacia patellae. This study was conducted to compare between eccentric contraction and concentric contraction exercises in management of chondromalacia patellae patients. The study included forty patients divided randomly into two groups. The first group followed a physical therapy program of eccentric contraction exercises, stretching of hamstrings muscles and ultrasonic therapy, three sessions per week for three months (mean age = 17.25 ± 1.46 years). The second group submitted to a physical therapy program of concentric contraction exercises, stretching of hamstrings muscles and ultrasonic therapy, three sessions per week for three months (mean age, 18.75 ± 1.64 years). The measures were WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University), universal goniometer to detect range of motion of knee extension from 90°-0° and VAS (visual analogue scale) to measure the pain severity. There was a significant improvement in pain, range of motion and WOMAC scores with eccentric contraction exercises. Eccentric contraction exercises were more effective than concentric contraction exercises in treatment of chondromalacia patellae patients.
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".