Pain management and strength gains compared between pneumatic partial weight support treadmill and underwater treadmill in overweight patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of the pneumatic partial weight support treadmill compared to the underwater treadmill (UTM) for reducing pain and increasing quadriceps strength in overweight patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Non-inferiority trial with a pre-specified 1-point range. METHODS: Participants (N = 109) were randomly assigned to the study (pneumatic partial weight support treadmill) (n = 55) or control (UTM) (n = 54) groups. Patients in both groups started with 50% weight support during the first week, 40% during the second week, and 30% during the third week and until the end of the study. Both groups received exercise for 30 min, 3 times per week for 8 weeks (24 sessions). Outcome measurements, including numerical pain rating scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale, quadriceps strength, body weight, 6-min walking test, and quality of life, were evaluated at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Only 74 participants completed the study. Numerical pain rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index showed non-inferiority of the study to control group. Improvement in quadriceps strength was significantly greater in the study than in control group. Adverse events were not significantly different between groups. Most subjects were satisfied and rated themselves as improved or much improved. Approximately three-quarters of participants attended more than 20 sessions, and there was no significant difference in outcomes between good and poor compliance. CONCLUSION: Pneumatic partial weight support treadmill can significantly decrease pain non-inferior to UTM, and can significantly increase quadriceps strength compared to UTM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".