Association of Knee Confidence With Pain, Knee Instability, Muscle Strength, and Dynamic Varus–Valgus Joint Motion in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between self-reported knee confidence and pain, self-reported knee instability, muscle strength, and dynamic varus-valgus joint motion during walking. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from 100 participants with symptomatic and radiographic medial tibiofemoral compartment osteoarthritis (OA) and varus malalignment recruited for a randomized controlled trial. The extent of knee confidence, assessed using a 5-point Likert scale item from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, was set as the dependent variable in univariable and multivariable ordinal regression, with pain during walking, self-reported knee instability, quadriceps strength, and dynamic varus-valgus joint motion during walking as independent variables. RESULTS: One percent of the participants were not troubled with lack of knee confidence, 17% were mildly troubled, 50% were moderately troubled, 26% were severely troubled, and 6% were extremely troubled. Significant associations were found between worse knee confidence and higher pain intensity, worse self-reported knee instability, lower quadriceps strength, and greater dynamic varus-valgus joint motion. The multivariable model consisting of the same variables significantly accounted for 24% of the variance in knee confidence (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Worse knee confidence is associated with higher pain, worse self-reported knee instability, lower quadriceps muscle strength, and greater dynamic varus-valgus joint motion during walking. Since previous research has shown that worse knee confidence is predictive of functional decline in knee OA, addressing lack of knee confidence by treating these modifiable impairments could represent a new therapeutic target.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".