Balneotherapy in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Controlled Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of combined balneotherapy and physical therapy compared to physical therapy alone in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Patients and methods: Forty-six patients (10 males, 36 females; mean age 70.82±7.78 years; range 57 to 85 years) with knee osteoarthritis were included in this study. Patients were assigned as group 1 and 2. Patients in group 1 (n=27) were treated with physical therapy alone, while patients in group 2 (n=19) were treated with balneotherapy combined to the same physical therapy protocol. All patients had physical therapy consisting of hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasonography for knee region, 45 minutes per day, five days a week for a total duration of three weeks. On the other hand, patients in group 2 also had daily balneotherapy sessions lasting 20 minutes, five days a week, again for three weeks duration. The demographic data and clinical features of the patients were recorded. Sickness impact profile was used for the evaluation of disease severity. Evaluation parameters also included visual analog scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 10-meter walking test, and the use of analgesic drugs. Tests were performed both at baseline before treatment and at the end of the third week after treatment. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of socio-demographic features. In both groups, significant improvements were observed for all of the measured variables (all p values
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it