The Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy vs. Low-Level Laser Therapy on Functional Ability and Quadriceps Architecture in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the disability and architecture of the quadriceps in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Ninety-eight patients with knee OA (KOA) were selected by convenience sampling and then divided into three groups: control, LLLT and HILT. Disability was determined using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Quadriceps structures including thickness, fascicle length and pennate angle of the vastus lateralis (VL) and thickness, volume and fiber angle of vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) muscles were assessed using ultrasonography. All evaluations were performed before interventions, immediately after interventions, and one month later. Between-group data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and paired-samples t-test. Results: The within-group comparisons of WOMAC scores before, after and at a one-month follow-up showed significant differences between the groups (P<0.001). The VMO thickness revealed significant increases after the treatment in both HILT (P<0.001) and LLLT (P=00.03) groups. The between-group comparison revealed a significantly lower score of WOMAC in the HILT group compared to the other groups after a one-month follow-up (P=00.03). VMO thickness showed a significant increase in the HILT group after the treatment (P=0.002). The VL structures and VMO fiber angle and volume did not exhibit significant changes in within-group and between-group comparisons (P>00.05). Conclusion: Both HILT and LLLT may improve functional ability and VMO thickness in patients with knee osteoarthritis. After a one-month follow-up, functional ability was greater in the HILT group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".