Impact of Concurrent Foot Pain on Health and Functional Status in People with Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the prevalence of foot pain and foot pain laterality in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine its impact on health and function. METHODS: Participants from the Progression subcohort (n = 1,255, ages 45-79 years) of the Osteoarthritis Initiative with symptomatic tibiofemoral knee OA were included. Prevalence of foot pain, defined as pain in the foot/ankle, and foot pain laterality were determined. Health status was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Short Form-12 Health Survey, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. Function was assessed using the 20-meter walk test (WT) and a repeated chair stand test. Differences in health and functional measures were compared between groups with and without foot pain using multivariate analysis of covariance. RESULTS: One-fourth (n = 317 [25%]) of people with knee OA experienced concurrent foot pain, with the majority (n = 174 [55%]) reporting pain in both feet. After adjusting for covariates, people with foot pain scored worse on all health measures and on the 20-meter WT, compared to those without (P < 0.05). Differences in health and function were found between the bilateral and ipsilateral foot pain groups compared to those without foot pain (P < 0.05), but no differences were found with the contralateral group. CONCLUSION: Foot pain is common in people with knee OA, and bilateral and ipsilateral foot pain adversely affect health and function, suggesting laterality is important. Further research is needed to establish the mechanism and interaction of pathology at these sites and to evaluate foot pain treatment in this population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".