Varus malalignment and its association with impairments and functional limitations in medial knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of varus malalignment with impairments and functional limitations in people with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Anatomic radiographic knee alignment was assessed in 107 community volunteers with medial tibiofemoral knee OA. Impairments assessed included pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), quadriceps and hamstring isometric strength, and knee varus-valgus laxity. WOMAC, walking speed, step test, and stair climb test were used to assess functional limitations. Participants were categorized into tertiles according to knee alignment (least, moderate, and most varus). Impairments and functional limitations between groups were compared using analyses of variance with and without adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity. Regression analyses were also performed in the entire cohort to further determine the relationship of varus malalignment to impairments and functional limitations. RESULTS: The most varus group (mean varus 7.7 degrees) did not demonstrate greater impairments or worse functional limitations compared with the moderate varus (4.2 degrees) and least varus (5.0 degrees) groups. In fact, the most varus participants performed significantly better on the step test compared with moderate (P = 0.006) and least varus (P = 0.004) participants. Knee alignment accounted for a significant but small proportion of the variance in step test performance (7%) and quadriceps strength (4%), but did not contribute significantly to the variance in any other parameter measured. CONCLUSION: Greater varus malalignment was associated with increased quadriceps strength and improved step test performance, but did not influence the severity of other measured impairments and functional limitations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".