EVALUATION OF TREATMENT PARAMETERS FOR FOCUSED-EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE THERAPY IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH BONE MARROW LESIONS:A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of different dosage parameters of focused-extracorporeal shock wave therapy on pain and physical function in knee osteoarthritis patients with bone marrow lesions. In addition, to investigate pathophysiological changes based on imaging and biomarker measures. METHODS: Using a single-case experimental design, a total of 12 participants were randomly allocated in 4 equal groups of 3 to receive different dosages of focused-extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Each group received either 4 or 6 sessions of 1500 or 3000 shocks over 4 or 6 weekly sessions. Participants underwent repeated measurements during the baseline, intervention, and post-intervention phases for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, aggregated locomotor function score and pressure pain threshold. Imaging and inflammatory biomarker outcomes were measured at baseline and 3 months following the intervention. RESULTS: The group receiving the highest dosage of focused-extracorporeal shock wave therapy showed clinical improvements superior to those of participants in the other 3 groups. Statistically significant changes during the follow-up phase in contrast to baseline measurements for the WOMAC score (Tau-U= -0.88, p < 0.001), aggregated locomotor function score (Tau-U= -0.77, p = 0.002), and pressure pain threshold (Tau-U= 0.54, p = 0.03) were observed. Bone marrow lesion and inflammatory cytokines demonstrated no change. CONCLUSION: A dose-dependent effect for focused-extracorporeal shock wave therapy on osteoarthritis-related symptoms was suggested. However, these improvements were not associated with changes in the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".