Effect of a physiotherapy rehabilitation program on knee osteoarthritis in patients with different pain intensities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] To examine the effect of physiotherapy rehabilitation program on moderate knee osteoarthritis in patients with different pain intensities. [Subjects and Methods] Sixty subjects (37 men and 23 women) with moderate knee osteoarthritis participated in the current study. Randomization software was used to select the participating subjects' numbers from the clinic records. They were classified into three groups according to pain intensity: mild, moderate, and severe pain groups. All groups underwent a standard set of pulsed electromagnetic field, ultrasound, stretching exercises, and strengthening exercises. Pain intensity, knee range of motion, knee function, and isometric quadriceps strength were evaluated using the visual analogue scale, universal goniometer, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, and Jamar hydraulic dynamometer, respectively. The evaluation was performed before and after a 4-week rehabilitation program. [Results] All groups showed significant differences in pain intensity, knee range of motion, isometric quadriceps strength, and knee function. The score change in moderate pain group was significantly greater than those in mild and severe pain groups. [Conclusion] Pain intensity is one of the prominent factors that are responsible for the improvement of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, pain intensity should be considered during rehabilitation of knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".