Effects of a foot-ankle strengthening programme on clinical aspects and gait biomechanics in people with knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have indicated that hip and knee muscle strengthening are effective in reducing pain, improving self-reported function and increasing lower limb strength, without, however, decreasing knee joint overload during gait in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Recent research has shown that strengthening the foot-ankle muscles improved function in diabetic patients and reduced patellofemoral pain. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether an 8-week therapeutic foot-ankle exercise programme improves pain, functionality, foot strength, foot kinematics and knee joint overload during gait, and decreases medication intake in individuals with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-arm, prospectively registered, randomised controlled trial with blinded assessors will involve 88 patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Subjects will be randomly allocated to a control group that will receive no specific foot intervention and will follow treatment recommended by the medical team; or an intervention group that will undergo an 8-week physiotherapist-supervised strengthening programme for extrinsic and intrinsic foot muscles, three times a week. The primary outcome will be the pain domain of the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The secondary outcomes include WOMAC stiffness and function domains, total WOMAC score, physical function, foot muscle isometric strength, foot kinematics and knee kinetics during gait, and medication intake. Data will be analysed on intention-to-treat principles and a per protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Investigators and sponsors will communicate trial results to participants and healthcare professionals through scientific databases and social media. In addition, findings will be reported in peer-review publications, and at national and international conference presentations. Ethics approval: Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil (N° 3.488.466). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04154059.
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 | 0.056 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.017 |
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".