Gender differences in effects of Graston technique, active release technique, and PNF stretching on hamstring flexibility in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. To seek gender differences among the effects of the Graston Technique (GT), Active Release Technique (ART), and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) stretching on hamstring flexibility, pain, lower extremity function, and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Materials and methods. A multicenter, single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 45 patients – aged above 30 years with knee osteoarthritis – randomly allocated to three equal groups: Group-A (GT), Group-B (ART), and Group C (PNF). Each group received 12 physiotherapy sessions over a four-week intervention period (3 visits per week). Data were collected before and after rehabilitation using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Active Knee Extension Test, Lower Extremity Function Scale, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Results. A statistically significant interaction between the effects of gender and Active Release Technique on lower extremity function was present (p < 0.001) with males (42.4 ± 2.2) showed more improvement than females (35.6 ± 6.6). On the contrary, females showed more improvement (p < 0.001) than males when Graston Technique and PNF techniques were applied. Conclusion. There were no significant gender-based differences among GT, ART, and PNF regarding pain, hamstring flexibility and WOMAC score. However, males showed significantly more improvement in lower extremity function than females with ART, and females showed more improvement in lower extremity function as compared to males with GT and PNF.
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) | 0.003 | 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".