MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297198147 · doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6ns7.12981

Effect of oscillatory whole-body vibration versus neuromuscular exercise on static and dynamic balance in patients with knee osteoarthritis

2022· article· en· W4297198147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aya T- Allah Eissa Hassan, Ragia Mohamed Kamel, Rania R. Mohamed, Enas ELsayed Mohamed Abutaleb

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisBalance (ability)Dynamic balancePhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationWhole body vibrationRating scalePsychologyVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of Whole body vibration (WBV) versus neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) to prove which treatment produced significant effect on pain, knee function disability, static and dynamic postural stability in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Method: Forty-five patients (39 women and 6 men) aged 45 to 62 years with grade 2 KOA were randomly assigned into the following three groups (all n = 15): group A (control group) received traditional treatment only (US, stretching and strengthening exercise); group B received NEMEX and traditional treatment and group C received WBV exercise and traditional treatment. Outcome measures were assessed pre and post treatment and included pain severity using the Arabic numerical pain rating scale (ANPRS), functional disability by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index, static balance (close and open eye) by Unipedal Stance Test and dynamic stability by Biodex Balance System (BBS). Results: The within-group analysis showed significant changes in pain severity, functional disability, static and dynamic stability index in groups B and C pre and post treatment (p < 0.05).

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health SciencesSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207