The effect of graded motor imagery training on pain, functional performance, motor imagery skills, and kinesiophobia after total knee arthroplasty: randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim was to investigate the effect of graded motor imagery (GMI) added to rehabilitation on pain, functional performance, motor imagery ability, and kinesiophobia in individuals with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Individuals scheduled for unilateral TKA were randomized to one of two groups: control (traditional rehabilitation, n = 9) and GMI (traditional rehabilitation + GMI, n = 9) groups. The primary outcome measures were the visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcome measures were knee range of motion, muscle strength, the timed up and go test, mental chronometer, Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3, lateralization performance, Central Sensitization Inventory, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale. Evaluations were made before and 6 weeks after surgery. Results: > 0.05). Conclusions: GMI improved pain, motor imagery ability, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia in the acute period after TKA.
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 | 0.034 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".