Bibliographic record
Abstract
This protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of Russian electrical stimulation–enhanced quadriceps strengthening exercise compared with strengthening exercise alone in 70 older adults with knee osteoarthritis, assessing pain, muscle strength, and functional ability over 6 months. The intervention consists of Russian electrical stimulation (50 Hz sinusoidal symmetric pulses, 400 μs pulse duration, 10 ms on/off bursts, 25% duty cycle: 5 s on / 20 s off) combined with a 6-week conventional quadriceps strengthening program. Outcomes will be measured using the VAS scale, pressure pain threshold via algometer, automated portable dynamometer, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the 6-Minute Walk Test. This study includes both genders, records baseline OA duration and severity, and evaluates multiple clinically relevant outcomes. It is expected to demonstrate that adding Russian electrical stimulation to strengthening exercise significantly improves pain, muscle strength, and particularly functional outcomes, with sustained benefits across gender 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".