Comparison of Quadriceps Exercise Modalities on Pain, Muscle Strength, Function, and Balance in Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the effects of various exercises on quadriceps femoris muscle and on pain, strength, function, and balance in female patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods: Forty-five female patients aged 40-65 years were diagnosed with bilateral knee OA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria and randomized into three groups.The pain and function of the patients in each group were evaluated by the visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaires.Muscle strength and endurance were measured with the Isokinetic System Cybex 350, and balance was evaluated with Biodex Balance System SD. Group 1 performed a home-based isometric exercise program, while groups 2 and 3 performed strength and endurance exercises, for 4 days per week for 6 weeks.Results: At week 6, only the activity pain scores decreased in group 1, whereas rest, night, and activity pain scores decreased significantly in groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001,p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively).Significant improvements in physical functions were found in each group (p<0.001).The isokinetic muscle strength for knee extensors increased significantly in groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001,p<0.01, respectively).The balance scores of groups 2 and 3 were improved at certain positions (p<0.001,p<0.05, respectively).Conclusion: Isometric exercises are widely used in the treatment of patients with knee OA.However, high-intensity isotonic exercises is recommended because of the shorter time of intervention for improving muscle strength, slowing the progression of the disease, and reducing the future risk of falling by improving balance.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".