Effect of ankle position on isometric quadriceps strengthening in osteoarthritis of knee joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The one exercise commonly used to strengthen the anterior thigh musculature is quadriceps setting exercise. But despite being the most frequently performed exercise, there still remains lack of agreement as to the most satisfactory way of performing this exercise. There is a lot of discrepancy with regard to the effects of ankle position while performing this exercise. The purpose of this study was to examine if ankle position influences the isometric quadriceps strength and to further find the most effective position of the ankle while performing the exercise. Methods 45 subjects were included for a 3 weeks protocol and randomly assigned to three groups (dorsiflexion, natural resting and plantar flexion position of ankle). Isometric strength, Reduced Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and Visual Analog Score (VAS), were measured. Oneway ANOVA was applied for the analysis of isometric strength between the group and for Reduced WOMAC and VAS scores Kruskal Wallis test was used for analysis between the groups. Results At the end of the protocol, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of isometric strength between the three groups. The dorsiflexion group showed better increase in the strength as compared to the natural resting and plantar flexion groups. However the values of isometric strength in both natural resting position and plantar flexion position were statistically insignificant with respect to each other. On comparing the final Reduced WOMAC and VAS score, there was no statistically significant difference between the dorsiflexion, natural resting and plantar flexion position. Conclusion The results of the study suggest that active dorsiflexion position of ankle, while performing quadriceps setting exercise is best suited in an attempt to facilitate quadriceps strength in patients with OA knee. The ankle position while performing setting exercise for quadriceps; however has no influence on the functional score and pain intensity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".