Analysis of the Effectiveness of Ultrasound Combined with Wall Squat Exercise versus Ultrasound Combined with Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization on Functional Activity in Sub-Acute Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint cartilage disorder that often causes pain and limits functional activity in affected individuals. To evaluate the difference in effectiveness between wall squat exercise and instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) in improving functional activity in patients with sub-acute lutut osteoarthritis.This study used a two-group pre-test and post-test design. The sample was taken from sub-acute lutut osteoarthritis. patients at the Elderly Posyandu within the Trauma Center Health Center in Samarinda, using random assignment techniques. Patients were divided into two groups: the intervention group I received ultrasound therapy (US) and wall squat exercise, while intervention group II received US and IASTM. Each group consisted of 21 patients and received treatment three times a week for four weeks. Functional activity was measured using The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Intervention group I showed a significant decrease in WOMAC scores from 32.33 ± 5.425 to 14.57 ± 3.218 (p < 0.001). Group II also showed a significant decrease, from 35.14 ± 4.453 to 25.43 ± 4.422 (p < 0.01). Group I experienced a greater reduction compared to group II (p = 0.00).The combination of US and wall squat exercise is more effective than the combination of US and IASTM in improving functional activity in patients with sub-acute lutut osteoarthritis.Patients receiving US and wall squat exercise showed a more significant improvement in functional activity. Based on the significant results, it is recommended that further research be conducted over a longer period to assess the long-term effectiveness of the interventions for osteoarthritis sub-acute lutut osteoarthritis
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".