Isometric Quadriceps Exercises for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Knee Joint Position Flexion versus Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To compare the effect of quadriceps isometric exercises performed in two different positions in addition to the combined physical therapy program on pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A total of 30 patients with OA (age range 45 to 70 years) who were admitted to Istanbul Private Ekotom Medical Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Outpatient Clinic, were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the type of performing the quadriceps isometric exercises as group 1 (performing in knee extension, n=14 ) and group 2 (performing in knee flexion, n=15 ). All patients also received a combined physical therapy program. Exercise protocols were applied six days a week for four weeks. The pain was evaluated using a 10 cm visual analog scale for pain (VAS) in rest and activity; pain, joint stiffness, and physical function were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results. A significant difference was found in the VAS and WOMAC scores of both groups in group comparisons ( p<0.05 ). When the groups were compared in terms of change values, a significant difference was found in the WOMAC stiffness score in favor of group I ( p<0.05 ). Discussion. It is possible to obtain positive results with quadriceps isometric exercises to reduce pain and joint stiffness and increase physical function in patients with knee OA. However, exercises performed in knee extension were found to be more effective in reducing joint stiffness.
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) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".