Eccentric versus concentric isotonic resistance training of quadriceps muscles for treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effect of isotonic eccentric resistance training versus isotonic concentric resistance training for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methodology: A total of 40 obese female patients with KOA (grade 2 and 3) and age between 40 to 60 years were randomized into 2 equal groups. The 1st group of 20 patients followed a physical therapy program of isotonic eccentric resistance training and the second group of 20 patients had physical therapy program of isotonic concentric resistance training for 8 weeks. We used visual analogue scale, knee range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and one repetition maximum test. Results: There was more improvement in isotonic eccentric resistance training when compared to isotonic concentric resistance training. Conclusion: Both resistance trainings played an important role in decreasing pain and stiffness, by improving muscles strength, range of motion, and functional activities of daily living but isotonic eccentric resistance training was more effective. This study emphasizes that both exercises are essential to incorporate in treatment of 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".