Effects of static magnets on chronic knee pain and physical function: a double-blind study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Static magnets have become an increasingly popular alternative therapy for individuals with musculoskeletal pain despite limited scientific evidence to support their efficacy or safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of static magnets on the pain and functional limitations associated with chronic knee pain due to degenerative joint disease. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Pretests and posttests were conducted in an academic health science center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three ambulatory subjects with chronic pain in 1 or both knee joints who were recruited from outpatient clinics or who volunteered to participate. INTERVENTION: Subjects wore pads containing magnets or placebos over their painful knee joints for 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-administered ratings of pain and physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and a timed 15-m (50-ft) walk. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of covariance revealed significantly greater improvements in the group wearing magnets (P=.002). Univariate analyses indicated that comparative changes in self-rated pain and physical function (P=.002 and .001, respectively) were greater than changes in gait speed (P=.042). CONCLUSIONS: The application of static magnets over painful knee joints appears to reduce pain and enhance functional movement. However, further study is needed to determine the physiological mechanisms responsible for this analgesic effect.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".