Clinical Value about Static Fall Index Test and Dynamic Fall Index Test for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the balance function of the knee osteoarthritis(KOA) patients and the clinical value about static fall index test and dynamic fall index test for the patients with knee osteoarthritis.Methods The osteoarthritis patients without knee pain(con-trol group,n=30) were tested with postural stability(PS),limits of stability(LOS),dynamic fall index(DFI) and static fall index(SFI).The osteoarthritis patients with knee pain(treatment group,n=30) accepted 10 times of diclofenac diethylamine emulge imported by pulsed ultra-sound and 6 times of massage therapy.They were also tested with above four balance tests and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) before and after treatments.Results There was significant difference in overall of PS,anterior/posterior in-dex and medial lateral index(P0.05) between the control group and the treatment group before treatments,and there was very significant difference in time to complete LOS,overall of LOS and DFI(P0.01);but there was no significant difference in SFI(P0.05).There was significant difference in WOMAC scores,overall of PS,anterior/posterior index,time to complete LOS,overall of LOS and DFI(P0.05) in the treatment group before and after treatments,but there was no significant difference in medial lateral index and SFI(P0.05).Conclusion Compared with osteoarthritis patients without knee pain,KOA patients with knee pain are in poorer balance function and greater fall risk.After effective treatments,the balance function and fall risk of the KOA patients may significantly improve.Compared with SFI test,the DFI test is more sensitive to the improvement of balance function of the KOA patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".