A randomized controlled trial: Acupotomy Arthroscope vs. arthroscopic intervention in knee OA patients' gait and symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the effects of Acupotomy Arthroscope and Arthroscopic interventions on gait and symptoms in patients with Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: In a single-blind, randomized trial, 73 KOA patients were assigned to receive either Acupotomy Arthroscope or Arthroscopic treatment. The primary outcomes measured were pre- and post-intervention gait spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Society Score (KSS). Results: Both groups exhibited significant improvements in gait parameters and reductions in WOMAC scores, with increases in KSS post-intervention (P < 0.01). The Acupotomy Arthroscope group demonstrated better improvements in gait cycle times and knee flexion angles, although it was less effective in enhancing walking speed. Conclusion: Both interventions effectively enhanced gait biomechanics and reduced joint symptoms. Acupotomy Arthroscope was more effective in improving short-term clinical symptoms and functional capacity, while Arthroscopic treatment was superior for pain and mobility limitations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".