Hip abductor strength–based exercise therapy in treating women with moderate-to-severe knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether hip abductor strength–based exercise therapy could result in further function improvement and more pain relief in women with knee osteoarthritis. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Settings: Rehabilitation department of Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University from years 2016 to 2018. Subjects: In total, 82 women aged 50–70 years, with knee osteoarthritis grade II–IV on the Kellgren–Lawrence scale. Intervention: The experimental group engaged in hip abductor strength–based exercises under the supervision of physical therapists (once a day for six weeks), while the control group engaged in quadriceps femoris strength–based exercises. Main measures: Osteoarthritis severity measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, pain on a visual analogue scale and three objective functional tests were assessed at the sixth and 12th week. Repeated measures analysis of variance and multivariable analysis were applied. Results: Finally, 72 participants completed the study: 35 in the experimental group and 37 in the control group. The self-reported functional difficulties score in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group both at the sixth week and at the 12th week ( P < 0.001). There were significant differences between groups in the stair ascent/descent task and Figure of 8 Walk test, but not in the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test. The pain in the experimental group decreased compared with that in the control group at the sixth week ( P < 0.05), but not at the 12th week ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Hip abductor strength–based exercises could result in better performance and higher self-reported function in women with symptomatic 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".