The Effects of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Therapy with and without Weight Bearing on the Outcomes of Stem Cell Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of two exercise programs on patients undergoing the implantation of intraarticular stem cells.Objectives.We performed a randomized trial on sixteen patients under 65 years old with moderate knee OA after stem cell therapy.Methods.Patients were randomly divided into two groups of exercise therapy: weight-bearing (WB) and non-weight-bearing (non-WB).This program lasted 12 weeks, with follow-ups at 1 and 3 months.Primary outcomes were knee pain (visual analog scale (VAS)) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)).Secondary outcomes included: standing time, walking distance, pain-free walking distance, time to jelling, and a subscale of stiffness and pain of WOMAC.Results.Fifteen patients were retained.No adverse effect was reported.There was a significant improvement in pain and physical function in both groups compared to the baseline.VAS: from 55±7.6 to zero (effect size of 1.34), total WOMAC: from 93.75±1.39 to 30.87±5.22 at 1-month and 21.87±6.99 at 3-month (1.88 and 2.73, respectively).For secondary outcomes, walking distance (from 750.0±267.26meter to 2000.0±0.0 meter and 2500.0±0.0 meter, respectively, and time to jelling (at 3 months, from 5.00±0.0minute to 35.00±16.90minute) improved significantly better in WB group.Conclusion.Both types of exercises were safe and improved primary and secondary outcomes.WB exercise has additional benefits of more pain reduction and functional improvement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".