Effects of Concentric- Eccentric Motion Exercise of Quadricep Muscle on Pain Reduction and Functional Improvement among Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Worldwide, osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, affecting millions of people. OA can damage any joint. The disorder most commonly affects joints in hands, knees, hips, and spine. Eccentric contraction is a lengthening movement of muscles. During muscle movement, the muscle fiber is stretched under tension from a force greater than the muscle generates. This study aimed to examine the effects of concentric-eccentric motion exercise of quadricep muscle on pain reduction and functional improvement among patients with knee OA. Subjects and Method: This was a randomized control trial conducted at Fitasoma Independent Physiotherapy Practice, from April to August 2017. A total of 24 OA patients was selected for this study, and randomly assigned into two groups: 12 patients with concentric-eccentric motion exercise in the intervention group and 12 patients without the exercise in the control group. The independent variable (the intervention) was concentric-eccentric motion exercise. The dependent variables were pain and functional ability. The pain was measured by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The functional ability was measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). After intervention, mean scores of pain and functional ability between the two groups were compared and tested by Mann-Whitney test. Results: Before intervention, the mean scores of pain and functional ability between the two groups were comparable, and it was statistically non-significant, indicating the intended effect of randomization. After intervention, mean score of pain in the intervention group was lower than the control group, and it was statistically significant. After intervention, mean score of functional ability in the intervention group was higher than the control group, and it was statistically significant.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".