Screening of therapeutic potentials of proprioceptive exercises and topical glucosamine sulfate on pain and functional disability in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effects of proprioceptive exercises and topical glucosamine sulfate on knee osteoarthritis in terms of reducing pain and functional disability. Methods: A single-blinded randomized clinical trial (IRCT20220115053712N1) was conducted at Muhammad Physical Therapy Clinic and Rehabilitation Center, Multan, Pakistan, from November 2021 to April 2022. Eighty-four patients enrolled and were randomized into two groups; patients in Group A were treated with proprioceptive exercises while those in Group B were treated with topical glucosamine sulfate. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale were used to measure pain and functional activities at baseline, 9th and 18th sessions. Results: The results showed that both interventions were effective, but more in Group A (p < 0.05). Group A also showed highly significant improvement in relieving the pains associated with osteoarthritis when compared to Group B (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Proprioceptive exercises are more efficient than topical glucosamine sulfate for managing knee osteoarthritis, improving functional outcomes and lowering pain intensity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".