MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410456104 · doi:10.34172/jrcm.025.34611

Comparing clinic-supervised and internet-based exercise therapy: A randomized controlled trial on pain, range of motion, and physical function in knee osteoarthritis patients

2025· article· en· W4410456104 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange of motionPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineKnee painAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) stands out as the most common synovial joint disease among people, leading to a reduced quality of life, persistent pain, muscle weakness, and significant functional impairments. The aim of this study is to carry out an investigation that assesses the efficacy of clinic-supervised and internet-based exercise therapy (IET) on pain, range of knee flexion, and physical function of patients with KOA. Methods: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 54 patients between the ages of 50 and 75, all of whom had confirmed KOA. These patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups, both of which underwent 18 sessions of exercise therapy. One group received supervised therapy, while the other received therapy delivered via the internet. The study measured various outcomes, including pain intensity assessed with the VAS, thigh girth (TG), knee active flexion range of motion (FROM), the six-minute walk test (6MWT), the timed up and go test (TUG), and knee functionality evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire, both before and after the intervention. We used the paired t-test for intra-group analysis and the independent samples t-test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test to compare differences between the groups. Results: Significant differences in outcomes were observed before and after the intervention in both groups (P=0.001). However, the ANCOVA test revealed no significant differences between the groups following the study. The statistical analysis, performed with an independent-samples t-test, indicated no significant differences between the two groups concerning VAS, active knee flexion, thigh girth, and WOMAC scores, suggesting that both supervised exercise therapy (SET) and IET protocols yielded similar effectiveness. Nevertheless, when employing the independent-samples t-test, there were significant differences between the groups in the TUG (P=0.001) and the 6MWT (P=0.017), with the IET group demonstrating superior performance. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that both SET and IET produce comparable outcomes in terms of reducing pain, increasing thigh girth, increasing knee flexion range, and improving WOMAC scores and the physical function of patients with KOA. The internet-based approach may offer added convenience and motivation for patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it