MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6930260628 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11059221

Effect Of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field And Microwave Therapy On Pain And Physical Function In Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

2024· dataset· en· W6930260628 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrotherapyOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleModalitiesClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy and microwaves (MW) are two electrotherapy modalities that have shown to improve pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these therapies is controversial due to diversity in the application parameters and treatment protocols in these patients. The objective is to compare the effectiveness of active PEMF versus MW, as well as sham PEMF, in addressing pain and improving functionality for treating KOA. Methods: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Participants diagnosed with KOA were assigned to an intervention combining an exercise program with active PEMF, MW, or sham PEMF, delivered in three weekly sessions over four weeks. The main outcomes were pain, reported on a 0–10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS), and functionality, as evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire, and the Timed Up and Go test. The outcomes were measured at pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and one and four months after the intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207