Effect of Resistance Training of Quadriceps Muscle in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effects of resistance training in quadriceps muscle in patients with knee osteoarthritis attending tertiary care hospital, Karachi. Materials and methods: This was a single blinded randomized control trial study with probability simple random sampling technique. Sampling was done in physiotherapy department of Al-Khidmat Hospital Korangi, Karachi from May to December 2018. The required sample size was found to be 74 (37 in experimental group and 37 in control group). Inclusion criteria for patients was age >45 years, moderate degree pain, ability to walk 20 to 30 meters, subject without any walking aid and chronic osteoarthritis of knee diagnosed on radiograph. Variables were observed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, and a strength gauge device, respectively. All observations were taken at baseline and after a week. SPSS version 23.0 was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 74 patients were recruited in this study. There were two groups Experimental and Control 37 patients were taken in each group. Strengthening of quadriceps exercises was assessed at baseline 9.13 ± 1.39 and after a week 11.36 ± 1.22 with statistically significant P-value of 0.041 in experimental group. In control group there was no statistical (difference observed at baseline and after a week routine checkup. Conclusion: Quadriceps strengthening exercises have a positive impact found in patients with knee OA. Experimental group patients gradually showed improvement after exercises of one week with good physical health status.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".