No Association between Daily Walking and Knee Structural Changes in People at Risk of or with Mild Knee Osteoarthritis. Prospective Data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between objectively measured daily walking and knee structural change, defined either as radiographic worsening or as cartilage loss, in people at risk of or with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Participants from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST) with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 0-2 and daily walking (measured with the StepWatch) at the 60-month visit were included. Participants had fixed-flexion, weight-bearing radiographs and knee magnetic resonance images (MRI) at 60 and 84 months. Radiographic worsening was read in both knees using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International grading, and MRI were read for 1 knee using the Whole-Organ MRI Score semiquantitative scoring. OR and 95% CI were calculated comparing those in the middle tertile against the lowest and highest tertiles of daily walking using logistic regression models and generalized estimating equations. Data on walking with moderate to vigorous intensity (min with > 100 steps/min/day) were associated to structural change using multivariate and logistic regression models. RESULTS: The 1179 study participants (59% women) were 67.0 years old (± 7.6), with a mean (± SD) body mass index of 29.8 kg/m(2) (± 5.3) who walked 6981 (± 2630) steps/day. After adjusting for confounders, we found no significant associations between daily walking and radiographic worsening or cartilage loss. More time spent walking at a moderate to vigorous intensity was not associated with either radiographic worsening or cartilage loss. CONCLUSION: Results from the MOST study indicated no association between daily walking and structural changes over 2 years in the knees of people at risk of or with mild knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".