Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of trampoline exercise with those of balance pad exercise on balance, gait, and knee joint function in elderly women with knee osteoarthritis. Twenty elderly women with knee osteoarthritis were randomly divided into a trampoline exercise group (n=10) and a balance pad exercise group (n=10). Both groups performed their group-specific exercise thrice a week for six weeks. Data were obtained for the two groups with the one-leg stance test (OLST), Timed Up and Go test (TUG), 10-meter walk test (10MWT), and all variables (pain, physical function, stiffness, and total) of the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (K-WOMAC) conducted before and after exercise. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test to compare changes in the variables after exercise for each group. An independent t-test was used for comparison between the groups. Both groups showed statistically significant improvements in OLST, TUG, 10MWT, and all variables of the K-WOMACK after exercise. There were statistically significant differences between the trampoline and balance pad exercise groups in stiffness and total variables of the K-WOMACK. There were no statistically significant differences between the trampoline and balance pad exercise groups in OLST, TUG, 10MWT, and pain and physical function variables of the K-WOMACK. The results indicate that trampoline and balance pad exercises are effective in promoting balance, gait, and knee joint function in elderly women with knee osteoarthritis. In particular, trampoline exercise was more effective than balance pad exercise for knee joint function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".