ISOKINETIC STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS IN EARLY KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: One of the most important reasons for locomotor dysfunction and disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is muscle weakness in the lower extremity. The aim of this study was to compare the isokinetic knee muscle strength of patients with early knee OA with those of healthy people. Patients and Methods: Fifty-one patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis who were radiologically graded as stage I or II and forty-three healthy subjects were enrolled. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and 100 mm VAS were used to assess patients with knee OA. Manual muscle strength testing for quadriceps muscle and circumference measurements 10 cm above the midpatellar line were performed. Bilateral isokinetic (concentric/concentric) knee flexion and extension with the protocol of 60 degrees/sec (four repetitions), 180 degrees/sec (four repetitions) and 240 degrees/sec (20 repetitions) were performed. Results: Regarding manual muscle testing of knee OA group, quadriceps muscle strength in six knees were 4/5 and in 96 knees were 5/5; whereas in the control group only two knees had 4/5 and the rest 84 knees had 5/5 muscle strengths (p=0.22). Thigh circumference measurements were statistically similar in this regard (all p values > 0.05). In all velocities knee flexor and extensor isokinetic muscle strength values were found to be significantly lower in patients with knee OA compared to healthy subjects (p<0.05). Patients with stage I OA had greater muscle strength than those of stage II (p<0.05). Conclusions: Whether being a cause or a consequence of knee OA, muscle strength loss which cannot be detected during clinical examination appears to be present during isokinetic measurements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".