Effect of Different Intensity Ultrasound on Femoral Cartilage Thickness and Symptomatic Relief in Knee Osteoartritis: A Randomized, Controlled Double-Blind Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABS TRACT Objective: Therapeutic ultrasound is a noninvasive and easily applicable treatment method used for musculoskeletal pain.The aim of this randomized, double-blind, controlled study is to evaluate the effects of different ultrasound intensities on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.Material and Methods: This single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study included 90 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence stage II-III) according to ACR criteria and experiencing moderate-to-severe knee pain.Patients were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 30) using a computer-generated random number table.All patients received a standard exercise program combined with hot pack, TENS, and continuous ultrasound therapy for 3 weeks (5 days per week, totaling 15 sessions).Pain (VAS), function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne index), and femoral cartilage thickness (ultrasonography) were measured by a blinded evaluator before treatment, at the end of treatment, and at 1 month.Ultrasound wave frequencies were set at 1 MHz, 1 W/cm² for the first group; 1.5 W/cm² for the second group; and 2 W/cm² for the third group.Results: There were no demographic differences between the groups (p>0.05).In all groups, significant improvement was observed in VAS, WOMAC subscores, Lequesne index, and femoral cartilage thickness at both the end of treatment and 1 month after treatment compared to baseline (p<0.001).However, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups in terms of clinical scores and cartilage thickness changes (p>0.05).Conclusion: Long-term low-intensity ultrasound significantly reduced pain and improved joint function in 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".