Effects of biodex balance training on symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in Rawalpindi: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To determine the effect of Biodex training on lower limb functional performance, balance, pain and properioception in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis patients. Methods: It was a Randomized control study conducted in Armed forces Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine (AFIRM) from February to June 2018. Ethical approval from Riphah research ethical committee was taken. Study included 48 patients of both genders with age between 35-65 years and grade II, III bilateral knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Osteoarthritis classification). Patients with Past Knee surgery, knee injury, Recent Intra articular injection and with Rheumatoid Arthritis were excluded. Purposive sampling technique was used for sample selection. Patients were randomly allocated through sealed envelope method into Control group (n=24) and Experimental group (n=24). Control group received traditional exercise program while Experimental group received balance training on biodex & traditional exercise program. Assessment was taken at baseline and post intervention. Pain was assessed through Numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), Functional performance was assessed through Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and Time up and Go test (TUG), Balance was assessed through Biodex stability system this assessment include overall stability index, AP stability, ML stability, overall sway, AP sway and ML sway. Data was analyzed on SPSS version 21. Results: Participants of experimental group shows statically significant improvement in NPRS (P<0.005), Overall stability index (p=0.49) and in Anteroposterior stability index (p=0.046). Improvement in Mediolateral stability index (p=0.047) and overall sway index was (p=.049). Stability index improved in all direction except in Anteroposterior index in experimental group. Continuous...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".