Comparative study of conventional physiotherapy,electromyography (emg) biofeedback andisokinetic exercise interventionin person sufferingosteoarthritis of knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was undertaken with an objective to To compare the effectiveness of conventional physiotherapy, electromyography (EMG) biofeedback and isokinetic exercise intervention on person suffering osteoarthritis (OA) of knee. Twenty eight cases on osteoarthritis of knee from Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) in the age above 50 years old are involved. All cases involved then assessed with Western Ontario And Mcmaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, peak torque using Biodex 4 Isokinetic machine, Standing force and knee joint force using Force Platform And 3Dimensional (3D) Qualisys Track Manager software and muscle activation using electromyoghaphy (EMG). These assessments were done for the screening test and preintervention base line information. Thereafter they were randomly and equally categorized into three groups, viz. - Group A (N=9)- consist of control group received conventional physiotherapy exercise intervention; Group B (N=9) — received electromyography (EMG) biofeedback exercise intervention and Group C (N=10) — received isokinetic exercise intervention. Group wise respective intervention trainings were imparted for 20 sessions (45- 60 min.s /day; 2 days/ week for 10 weeks). Post-term analyses on all of the variables assessed in the pre-intervention phase were done on all of the cases after the completion of 10 weeks of intervention. Findings of this present study clarified that, although all of the interventions had beneficial impacts, EMG biofeedback intervention was observed as most effective in enhancement of muscle potentiality, while conventional exercise also was observed as having satisfactory outcomes. Further to that, compared to other intervention techniques, EMG biofeedback was also observed as mostly suitable in modulating fatigability in the subjects while Isokinetic training also were observed to have slight improvement in fatigue management. EMG biofeedback was also observed to improve in peak torque; while Isokinetic intervention was not at all beneficial for improvement in peak torque.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".