MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220859402 · doi:10.52403/ijhsr.20220344

Effectiveness of Retro Walking in Women with Osteoarthritis of Knee

2022· article· en· W4220859402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elseba Baby, Arun Thachil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Sciences and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACPhysical therapySignificant differenceMann–Whitney U testMenopauseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a major cause of mobility impairment, particularly among females. The incidence of osteoarthritis (OA) increases after menopause, and may be related to hormonal changes in women. Estrogen deficiency is known to affect the development of OA. Methodology: Eighteen post-menopausal women with knee Osteoarthritis of age 45-75 were assessed and selected for the study who satisfies the inclusion criteria and were assigned into two groups of 9 subjects each. In Group A the experimental group underwent a protocol with retro-walking along with conventional exercises and Group B conventional group was treated with Static Quadriceps, Terminal Knee Extension, IFT exercises and performed it for 3 months and the study period was 3 weeks. The outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scale, Modified Sphygmomanometer Test (MST), Timed Up to Go Test (TUGT). Using these outcome measures pre-test and post-test value were obtained. Result: The results were analyzed using paired and independent t- test. The significance level was kept as p < 0.05. In case of pain, there were significant difference between the pre- test and post-test WOMAC (pain) scores in both experimental and conventional groups, p< 0.001, p < 0.001 respectively. In the group comparison of WOMAC, the obtained p value was 0.015 (p < 0.05), hence there was a significant difference in post-test scores between the two groups. The mean difference 10 shows that the improvement is more significant in Experimental group. In case of functional mobility, there were significant difference between pre-test and post-test TUG scores in both experimental and conventional groups, p < 0.001, p < 0.01 respectively. In the group comparison, the obtained p value was 0.04 (p < 0.05), hence there was significant difference in post -test scores between the experimental and conventional groups. The mean difference 3.6 portrayed that the, Experimental group showed more significant improvement. In case of muscle strength, there were significant difference existing between the pre-test and post-test scores in both experimental and conventional groups, p < 0.001, p < 0.05. When the two groups were compared, the obtained p value was 0.02(p < 0.05) and hence there was significant difference in post -test scores between both the groups. The mean difference 7.2 shows more significant improvement in the Experimental group. Although both groups showed improvement, the scores in the experimental group are significantly higher than that of the conventional group. Conclusion: The study concluded that experimental group shows better in pain reduction, quadriceps muscle strength and functional mobility in experimental than control group. Key words: Osteoarthritis, Knee joint, Post-menopausal, Retro-walking, Pain, Muscle Strength, functional mobility, Quadriceps muscle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Sciences and ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207