MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128821015 · doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2021.01.003

Comparison of whole-body vibration training and quadriceps strength training on physical function and neuromuscular function of individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised clinical trial

2021· article· en· W3128821015 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise Science & Fitness · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWhole body vibrationMedicineProprioceptionOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTimed Up and Go testRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleIsometric exerciseKnee JointBalance (ability)Internal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the leading causes of global disability, which causes knee pain, stiffness and swelling. Impaired neuromuscular function may cause joint instability, alignment changes and knee stress, which leads to the progression of KOA. Whole-body vibration (WBV) training is considered to improve pain and functional mobility effectively. However, few studies have investigated the therapeutic effect of WBV on neuromuscular function in KOA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-blinded, randomised, controlled trial was performed on 81 participants diagnosed with KOA. The participants were randomised into three groups: (1) WBV group, in which participants performed strength training (ST) with vibration exposure for 8 weeks; (2) ST group, in which participants performed ST without vibration for 8 weeks; and (3) health education (HE) group, in which participants received a HE for 8 weeks. The visual analogue scale for knee pain, isokinetic muscle strength test, proprioception test, Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and 6-min Walk Distance test (6MWD) were performed before and after the interventions. RESULTS: No significant difference was found on pain, proprioception, TUG and 6MWD. A significant interaction effect was found in isokinetic muscle strength between groups. Further analysis showed that compared with the HE group, the WBV group exhibited significantly greater improvement in isokinetic muscle strength (peak torque [PT] of extensors, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.11-0.33 Nm/kg; PT of flexors, p = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.02-0.19 Nm/kg; peak work [PW] of extensors, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.12-0.75 W/kg). In addition, compared with the ST group, the muscle strength of the WBV group (PT of extensors, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.10-0.32 Nm/kg; PW of extensors, p < 0.01, 95% CI = 0.09-0.71 W/kg) improved significantly. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggested that adding WBV training to ST might benefit muscle strength around the knee joint in patients with KOA.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it