Impact of high-power laser therapy on bilateral knee osteoarthritis: A randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Osteoarthritis is the most common type of arthritis. It is the main cause of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability, it decreases the flexibility of the joint, and causes pain, joint effusion and loss of function among the elderly population. Objective. To examine how HILL therapy (High intensity laser therapy NDYAG 1064 nm) affects knee osteoarthritis.Design. A prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting. Outpatient Swiss physical therapy center. Methods. Thirty patients of both gender having bilateral knees osteoarthritis were recruited and randomized into two equal groups: the control group received a program of selected quadriceps muscle sets exercise and hamstring, calf muscles stretching for 4 weeks, and the study group received the same control group interventions in addition to HILL application. Ultrasonography degree was the primary outcome, While Western Ontario and McMaster universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index measures were the secondary outcomes. All variables were measured at the baseline and after 4 weeks of the intervention. Results. Statistical analysis was done by using paired’ test which showed significant improvement in both groups. Therefore, there was a significant difference between Group(A) and Group(B), showing that HILL group(A) is more effective than group(B) on pain, Stiffness, Function and ultrasonographic findings (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Using HILT with a standard program of quadriceps muscle strengthen exercise sets and hamstring, calf muscles stretching has more beneficial effects on bilateral knee osteoarthritis than practicing the exercise program alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".