MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Balneotherapy and Physical Therapy on Sleep Quality in Patients with Osteoarthritis Aged 50 to 85 Years

2016· article· en· W2311951062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erkan Kaya

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTherapeutic Uses of Natural Elements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalneotherapyOsteoarthritisPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPhysical therapySleep disorderSleep (system call)Sleep qualityQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineInsomniaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the effect of balneotherapy (BT) and physical therapy (PT) on sleep quality in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) aged 50 to 85 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 199 patients (76 males, 123 females; mean age 67.8±7.3 years; range 50 to 85 years) suffering from knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3) for more than six months were enrolled. Sleep and functional status were assessed at baseline and after 19 sessions of BT and 15 sessions of PT by using Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, respectively. RESULTS: A high prevalence of abnormal sleep quality in patients with knee OA was observed. The most common abnormality was sleep fragmentation (71%), with an increased sleep disturbance score. Patients reported significantly improved sleep, pain, stiffness, and functional status after BT and PT. CONCLUSION: Balneotherapy and PT improved self-reported sleep and functional status in patients with OA aged 50 to 85 years. We may conclude that BT and PT, which are used in the treatment of OA, not only reduce nocturnal pain, but also improve sleep quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of RheumatologySame topicTherapeutic Uses of Natural ElementsFrench-language works237,207