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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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