Effects of Isometric Quadriceps Muscle Exercise with Visual and Auditory Feedback at 1 Year after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of isometric quadriceps exercises with visual and auditory feedback after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The sample included 41 patients from our previous study who could be followed up for 1 year after TKA. Patients in the intervention group performed isometric quadriceps exercises with visual and auditory feedback using the quadriceps training machine from the 2nd to the 14th day after TKA, whereas those in the control group underwent standard postoperative rehabilitation (without visual or auditory feedback during isometric quadriceps exercises) in the hospital. Patients were evaluated for pain intensity, timed up and go test (TUG) score, 10-m gait speed, 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score 1 year after TKA. Additionally, exercise habits and responses to the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) were investigated. RESULTS: Pain intensity was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group. Greater improvements in the TUG test scores, 10-m gait speed, 6MWD, and WOMAC scores were observed in the intervention group. Walking activity, as recorded by the IPAQ, and the proportion of patients with exercise habits were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that performing isometric quadriceps exercise with visual and auditory feedback using the quadriceps training machine has good effects, such as pain reduction, physical function improvement, exercise tolerance, and increased physical activity at 1 year 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".