The effects of quadriceps isometric contraction exercise on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the treatment effects of quadriceps isometric contraction exercise on osteoarthritis of the knee joint.Methods 250 cases were chose in this study who were the patients diagnosed as knee osteoarthritis(OA)in outpatient of our hospital from January 2007 to January 2011,with an average age of 67.8 years old(45.0-75.0),and the ratio of men/women was 1∶4;the X ray classification of level Ⅰ was 28,level Ⅱ was 66,level Ⅲ was 90,and level Ⅳ was 66 cases.The patients were chose randomly into the exercise treatment group(128 cases)as test group or traditional treatment group(122 cases)as control group.The isometric contraction exercise of quadriceps were used in the test group and the treatment of local physiotherapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs(NSAIDs)were used in control group.The knee joint function was evaluated with Western Ontario and McMaster(WOMAC)Osteoarthritis Index and visual analog score(VAS)before treatment and 1,3 months after treatment.Results By the parallel results of WOMAC index and VAS score,1 month after treatment the joint function improved significantly in the test group(P0.05),further improved at 3 months compare with 1 month after treatment(P0.01),whereas the control group in 1 month after treatment though clearly got better(P0.05),but no further improvement in the next 2 months(P0.05).The function of knee joints of the test group was better than control group with significant difference at 3 months after treatment(P0.01).Conclusions The knee joint pain can be relieved effectively and the function also can be improved by the systematic quadriceps isometric contraction exercise.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".