Effects of quadriceps functional exercise with isometric contraction in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effects of a quadriceps isometric contraction exercise method in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A total of 250 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of knee OA were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into an exercise treatment test group (128 patients) and a traditional treatment control group (122 patients). Quadriceps isometric contraction exercise was used in the test group, and local physiotherapy and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used in the control group. Knee joint function was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS) score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire before treatment, and 1 and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: VAS scoring and the WOMAC questionnaire showed significant relief in pain 1 month after treatment in the test group (P < 0.05), but minimal relief in the control group; at 1 month, there was also minimal joint function improvement in the test group (P > 0.05), but significant improvement in the control group (P < 0.05). However, 3 months after treatment, pain relief and knee joint function were more improved in the test group than in the control group, with a significant difference (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Through our short-term observation, joint pain was effectively relieved and knee joint function was improved with 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".