EFFECTS OF RUNNING ON RECOVERY OF FUNCTION IN ATHLETES WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Running can promote health prevent obesity, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases, among other chronic diseases. Much research reports the benefits of this aerobic resistance exercise, but little is known about the impacts of running on knee osteoarthritis. Objective To observe and study the clinical effect of running on pain and function improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods Seventy cases that met the inclusion criteria were selected and randomly divided into control and observation groups. Patients in the observation group received eight weeks of neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) and eight weeks of quadriceps muscle strength training while the control group was subjected to a running protocol. Patients were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Pain Scale and Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) after 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Results After 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment, the WOMAC function scores of the two groups significantly improved compared to that found before treatment (P < 0.05); There was no difference between the two groups before treatment and after 1, 2 weeks of treatment. After 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, the function of the observation group was better than that of the control group; the difference was statistically significant (t= -4.287, -6.355, P<0.05). Conclusions NEMEX training methods and quadriceps muscle strength training can effectively improve patients’ functional level, but NEMEX improves more significantly than quadriceps muscle strength training. Evidence level II; Therapeutic Studies - Investigating the results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".