High-intensity laser therapy (class IV) and ibuprofen gel phonophoresis for treating knee osteoarthritis among people living in hilly terrain: a randomized, double blind, multi-centre trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People living in hilly terrain with abnormal cyclic loading could lead to bone cartilage degeneration. High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and Ibuprofen gel phonophoresis (IGP) have innumerable benefits for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, it is still unclear which treatment is effective among them in rehabilitating patients with KOA. OBJECTIVE: To verify whether 8-week HILT is no worse than the IGP in treating patients with knee osteoarthritis living in hilly terrain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 108 individuals with KOA will be recruited by simple random sampling to participate in a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Recruited individuals with KOA will be randomly divided into two groups, the HILT group (experimental group) and the IGP group (active control group). The treatment duration of HILT and IGP will be 8 minutes in one session/knee joint for each day for 3 days/week up to 8 weeks in addition to their conventional exercises for 30 minutes. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Digitalized pain pressure algometer, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire are the outcome measures that will be recorded at baseline, end of the 8-week post-intervention period. PERSPECTIVES: The results from this trial will contribute to evidence-based recommendations for the clinical implication of whether HILT is no worse than IGP, along with exercise intervention for treating individuals with KOA living in hilly terrain. Trial Registry: Clinical Trials Registry (NCT04320914)
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".