Daily Walking and the Risk of Incident Functional Limitation in Knee Osteoarthritis: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physical activity is recommended to mitigate functional limitations associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear whether walking on its own protects against the development of functional limitation. METHODS: Walking over 7 days was objectively measured as steps/day within a cohort of people with or at risk of knee OA from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. Incident functional limitation over 2 years was defined by performance-based (gait speed <1.0 meter/second) and self-report (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function score >28 of 68) measures. We evaluated the association of steps/day at baseline with developing functional limitation 2 years later by calculating risk ratios adjusted for potential confounders. The number of steps/day that best distinguished risk for developing functional limitation was estimated from the maximum distance from chance on receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Among 1,788 participants (mean age 67 years, mean body mass index 31 kg/m(2) , 60% women), each additional 1,000 steps/day was associated with a 16% and 18% reduction in incident functional limitation by performance-based and self-report measures, respectively. Walking <6,000 and <5,900 steps/day were the best thresholds to distinguish incident functional limitation by performance-based (sensitivity 67.3%, specificity 71.8%) and self-report (sensitivity 58.7%, specificity 68.9%) measures, respectively. CONCLUSION: More walking was associated with less risk of functional limitation over 2 years. Walking >6,000 steps/day provides a preliminary estimate of the level of walking activity to protect against developing functional limitation in people with or at risk of 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".