Association between Hamstring Flexibility and Functional Performance of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent degenerative joint disease. The treatments of patient with knee osteoarthritis focused on pain reduction, improve joint motion, enhancement of muscle strength and endurance. However, little attention was given to hamstring flexibility training. It is believed that hamstring flexibility plays an important role in functional performance of patient with knee osteoarthritis. Aim: The present study was aimed to find out the correlation between hamstring flexibility and functional performance in patient with knee Osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients with knee osteoarthritis matched with the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Active Knee Extension Test (AKET) was used to evaluate the hamstring tightness. Functional performance of participants was assessed using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Pearson's product moment correlation was used to determine the relationship between hamstring flexibility and functional performance of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Results: A statistically significant positive correlation between hamstring flexibility and total WOMAC score (+0.467, p = 0.005). The component of WOMAC was also analysed separately pain (+0.369, p = 0.029), physical function (+0.418, p = 0.012) and (+0.273, p = 0.113). The results of the present study shows that decreased in hamstring flexibility in patient with knee osteoarthritis causes significant reduction in physical functional and pain. Conclusion: The results states that decreased in hamstring flexibility in patient with osteoarthritis causes functional limitation. Therefore, it is essential to suggest flexibility exercises for knee osteoarthritis patients during physical therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".