MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779346074 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001530

Benefits of Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction in Knee Osteoarthritis

2017· article· en· W2779346074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodrigo Ferraz, Bruno Gualano, Ceci Obara Kurimori, Ricardo Fuller, Fernanda Rodrigues Lima, Ana Lúcia de Sá‐Pinto, Hamilton Roschel

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de São PauloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisBlood flow restrictionMedicineResistance trainingPhysical therapyTimed Up and Go testBlood flowIntensity (physics)Internal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Evaluate the effects of a low-intensity resistance training (LI-RT) program associated with partial blood flow restriction on selected clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Forty-eight women with knee OA were randomized into one of the three groups: LI-RT (30% one repetition maximum [1-RM]) associated (blood flow restriction training [BFRT]) or not (LI-RT) with partial blood flow restriction, and high-intensity resistance training (HI-RT, 80% 1-RM). Patients underwent a 12-wk supervised training program and were assessed for lower-limb 1-RM, quadriceps cross-sectional area, functionality (timed-stands test and timed-up-and-go test), and disease-specific inventory (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) before (PRE) and after (POST) the protocol. RESULTS: Similar within-group increases were observed in leg press (26% and 33%, all P < 0.0001), knee extension 1-RM (23% and 22%; all P < 0.0001) and cross-sectional area (7% and 8%; all P < 0.0001) in BFRT and HI-RT, respectively, and these were significantly greater (all P < 0.05) than those of LI-RT. The BFRT and HI-RT showed comparable improvements in timed-stands test (7% and 14%, respectively), with the latter showing greater increases than LI-RT. Timed-up-and-go test scores were not significantly changed within or between groups. WOMAC physical function was improved in BFRT and HI-RT (-49% and -42%, respectively; all P < 0.05), and WOMAC pain was improved in BFRT and LI-RT (-45% and -39%, respectively; all P < 0.05). Four patients (of 16) were excluded due to exercise-induced knee pain in HI-RT. CONCLUSIONS: Blood flow restriction training and HI-RT were similarly effective in increasing muscle strength, quadriceps muscle mass, and functionality in knee OA patients. Importantly, BFRT was also able to improve pain while inducing less joint stress, emerging as a feasible and effective therapeutic adjuvant in OA management.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations256
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207