Sensor-Based Gait Retraining Lowers Knee Adduction Moment and Improves Symptoms in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the effect between walking exercise and a newly developed sensor-based gait retraining on the peaks of knee adduction moment (KAM), knee adduction angular impulse (KAAI), knee flexion moment (KFM) and symptoms and functions in patients with early medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). Eligible participants (n = 71) with early medial knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade I or II) were randomized to either walking exercise or gait retraining group. Knee loading-related parameters including KAM, KAAI and KFM were measured before and after 6-week gait retraining. We also examined clinical outcomes including visual analog pain scale (VASP) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at each time point. After gait retraining, KAM1 and VASP were significantly reduced (both Ps < 0.001) and KOOS significantly improved (p = 0.004) in the gait retraining group, while these parameters remained similar in the walking exercise group (Ps ≥ 0.448). However, KAM2, KAAI and KFM did not change in both groups across time (Ps ≥ 0.120). A six-week sensor-based gait retraining, compared with walking exercise, was an effective intervention to lower medial knee loading, relieve knee pain and improve symptoms for patients with early medial knee OA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".