Kinetic chain exercises on muscle cross-sectional area, pain, and functional mobility in knee osteoarthritis: A single-blinded, randomised multigroup clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three modes of kinetic chain exercises (KCE) on muscle cross-sectional area, pain, function, and mobility among individuals with knee osteoarthritis (IKOA). 60 IKOA aged, over 50 years were recruited using a convenience sampling technique based on selection criteria. Then, the group was randomly allocated into three different groups, namely, open kinetic chain exercise (OKCE), close kinetic chain exercise (CKCE), and combined chain exercise (CCE). Muscle cross-sectional area, pain, and functional mobility were measured using thigh girth measurement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and timed-up-go test (TUG), respectively. Data obtained before (baseline), at the end of the 3rd and 6th weeks were taken for analysis. Statistical significant ( ) changes were observed in thigh girth measurement, WOMAC and TUG in CCE than OKC and CKC groups. The result of this study suggests that CCE are more effective in improving functional outcomes and mobility than OKCE and CKCE in PKOA. Registered with Clinical Trials Registry, India (CTRI): REF/2021/12/049412.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".