Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Proprioceptive Training According to Radiological Stages in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of proprioceptive studies according to radiological stages in patients with knee osteoarthritis and to determine at which stage of the disease it should be added to the rehabilitation program. Materials and Methods: This study is a prospective clinical trial. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (name of the registry: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Proprioceptive Training According to Radiological Stages in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis; trial registration number: NCT06150170; date of registration: 21 November 2023). The patients were divided into two groups, which were Grade 1–2 (Group 1) and Grade 3–4 (Group 2) knee osteoarthritis. Both groups underwent a strengthening plus proprioception exercise 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Our primary scale was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) scale. The secondary outcome measures were pain intensity level, proprioception, range of motion, muscle strength, physical performance, physical activity, quality of life and patient satisfaction. All evaluations were performed twice, before treatment and after 4 weeks of treatment. Conclusions: After treatment, there were significant improvements in pain, range of motion, proprioception, muscle strength, functionality, physical performance and quality of life in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the total WOMAC scores among groups after treatment (p = 0.086). There was more improvement in hip external rotation range of motion in Group 1 (p = 0.022). No significant difference was found in other secondary outcomes (p > 0.05). As a result of this study, we found that proprioceptive training was effective on pain, joint position sense, range of motion, muscle strength, functionality, physical performance and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis in all radiological stages. However, there was no difference between the groups, except for hip external rotation angles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".