A comparison of the efficacy of nonweight-bearing and weight-bearing exercise programmes on function and pain pressure thresholds in knee osteoarthritis: a randomised study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To establish what type of intervention (nonweight-bearing [NWB] or weight-bearing [WB]) was more effective in enhancing muscle strength and knee function and in increasing pressure pain thresholds (PPT) points close and distant from the knee (hyperalgesia) in persons with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis (KOA).Methods Thirty persons (62 ± 9 years) with mild or moderate KOA and knee pain for 6 months or more were randomly stratified according to sex and KOA severity to groups of intervention: WB or NWB. The intervention was performed three times a week over 8 weeks, focussing on progressive strength exercise. One-repetition maximum strength (1-RM) test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) function scale and PPT points close and distant from the knee were evaluated before and after the intervention.Results Both interventions promoted improvement in 1-RM test (NWB exercise [IC 63–88], p = 0.001; WB exercise [IC 57–122], p = 0.007), functional capacity (NWB exercise [IC 10–29.4], p = 0.001; WB exercise [IC 10–45], p = 0.001), PPT points close to the knee (NWB exercise [IC 5.42–8.93], p = 0.001; WB exercise [IC 3.97–8.47], p = 0.001) and PPT points distant from the knee (NWB exercise [IC 4.38–7.70], p = 0.001; WB exercise [IC 3.75–7.31], p = 0.002). There were no statistical differences between them.Conclusions The WB and NWB interventions were effective in improving muscle strength, knee function, and PPT points close and distant from the knee (hyperalgesia) in persons with mild and moderate KOA, with no significant differences between them. Trial registration Clinical trial registration number: RBR-5t95n5; Date of registration: July 15, 2013.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".