[Relationship between the mechanical and anatomic axis and orientation angles of the knee joint and functional capacity of patients with osteoarthritis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the relationship between the mechanical-anatomic axes and angles of the knee joint and functional levels of patients with primary osteoarthritis. METHODS: A total of 35 patients (27 females, 8 males; mean age 58+/-9 years; range 42 to 77 years) with knee osteoarthritis were included. After physical examination, weight-bearing anteroposterior x-rays of the knees were obtained, on which measurements of the following were made: mechanical axis deviation (MAD), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), anatomic tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and joint line congruence angle (JLCA). Pain was evaluated by both the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and a visual analog scale (VAS). Functional capacity was assessed using the physical function and global indices of WOMAC. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between body mass index and the WOMAC global index (r=0.47, p<0.05). Radiographic evaluations revealed varus deformity in 28 patients. There was a correlation between aTFA and the physical function (r=0.47) and global (r=0.41) indices of WOMAC (p<0.05). Functional capacity and pain were not correlated with the other mechanical angles of the knee joint (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In view of our results, aTFA may be considered one important criterion in designing treatment and planning surgery for patients with primary 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".