Low power laser treatment in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic efficacy of low power laser therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The study design was randomised, placebo-controlled and single blinded. Sixty patients with knee OA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria were included and randomly assigned to three treatment groups: active laser with dosage of 3 J/per painful point, active laser with a dosage of 1.5/J per painful point and placebo laser treatment groups. A Gal-Al-As diode laser device was used as a source of low power laser with a power output of 50 mW and a wavelength of 830 nm. The patients were treated 5 times weekly with 10 treatments in all. The clinical assessments included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness and physical function subscales. In addition, the intensity of pain at rest and on activation was evaluated on a visual analogue scale. Compared to baseline, at week 3 and at month 6, no significant improvement was observed within the groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found among the treatment groups at any time. With the chosen laser type and dose regimen the results that we obtained in this study, suggest that low-level laser therapy has no effect on pain in 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".