Which exercise program improves on postural control and functional alignment in individuals with dynamic knee valgus? : Pilates vs neuromuscular exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of neuromuscular exercise or well-structured Pilates exercise training in individuals with excessive inward movement of the knee during dynamic activities. Prospective, Single blind, randomize controlled trial. Thirty-six participants were randomly assigned into three groups: Neuromuscular (mean age: 23.0±1.7yrs; n=12), Pilates (mean age: 23.5±1.8yrs; n=12), and control group (mean age: 22.0±1.9yrs; n=12). All participants were assessed before and after a six-week intervention period by using single leg squat and drop jump tests for frontal plane angle, single leg vertical jump, balance tests, and isometric muscle strength tests and completed 18sessions with physiotherapist-supervised over 6-weeks, 3-times per week. There were significant improvements in the Pilates in frontal plane projection angle during drop jump (p=0.002), strength of the rectus femoris muscle (p=0.006), total postural stability (p=0.020), and anterior-posterior stability (p=0.006). There were statistically significant in frontal plane angle during single leg squat and in both the neuromuscular (p=0.007) and Pilates (p=0.002) groups. Both groups showed significant gains in postural control during the limits of stability test (p<0.05). Pilates exercises may offer a safe and effective method to reduce excessive knee inward movement and enhance neuromuscular control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".