Knee-ankle-foot orthoses for treating posterior knee pain resulting from genu recurvatum: Efficiency, patients' tolerance and satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of knee-ankle-foot orthoses for treating painful genu recurvatum, and to determine users' tolerance and satisfaction. PATIENTS: Patients included in the study had a genu recurvatum during the stance phase, confirmed by a medical doctor on physical examination. A total of 27 patients with 31 knee-ankle-foot orthoses were included. METHODS: The main outcome was scored on a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) before and at least 3 months after a knee-ankle-foot orthosis was fitted, and scored on a verbal numerical pain rating scale (VRS). Secondary outcomes were rated with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). RESULTS: After fitting the knee-ankle-foot orthosis, the median VNRS pain score decreased from 85/100 to 25/100 (p ≤ 0.001) and the description of pain on the VRS decreased from "extreme" to "mild" (p ≤ 0.001). The QUEST total score was 4.0. CONCLUSION: Treating a painful genu recurvatum with a knee-ankle-foot orthosis reduced the pain efficiently whatever the patients' diagnosis, and high scores were obtained for patients' satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".