Comparison of the effects of isokinetic exercise system and home exercise program on balance, gait analysis, pain severity and quality of life in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Our aim in this study is to compare the effects of isokinetic exercise system and home based exercise program on balance and gait analysis, pain severity and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods: A total of 60 patients diagnosed with primary knee OA were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups. The first group received conventional electrotherapy for 10 sessions along with a six-week home-based program consisting of isometric and isotonic strengthening exercises targeting the knee flexor and extensor muscles, performed three times per week. The second group received conventional electrotherapy for 10 sessions combined with a six-week isokinetic strengthening program targeting the knee flexor and extensor muscles, performed three times per week under the supervision of a physiotherapist. At the beginning and end of the treatment, patients were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and spatiotemporal gait analysis parameters (cadence, swing and stance phase percentages, stride length, step width, step time, and gait speed). Results: The isokinetic exercise group exhibited statistically significant improvements over the home exercise group in activity VAS scores, the emotional role difficulty and mental health subscales of the SF-36, and the 6-MWT distances (p
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".