Association of weight gain with incident knee pain, stiffness, and functional difficulties: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the longitudinal association between significant weight change and change in knee symptoms (pain, stiffness, and function), and to determine whether the effects differ in those who are obese and those with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Two hundred fifty subjects ranging from normal weight to obese (body mass index range 16.9-59.1 kg/m(2) ) and no significant musculoskeletal disease were recruited from the general community and weight loss clinics and organizations. Seventy-eight percent were followed at ~2 years. Weight, height, and knee symptoms (using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were assessed at baseline and followup. Any weight loss methods were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty percent of subjects lost ≥5% of baseline weight, 56% of subjects' weight remained stable (loss or gain of <5% of baseline weight), and 14% of subjects gained ≥5% of baseline weight. Using estimated marginal means, weight gain was associated with worsening pain (mean 27.1 mm; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1.1, 55.2), stiffness (mean 18.4 mm; 95% CI 1.5, 35.3), and function (mean 99.3 mm; 95% CI 4.0, 194.6) compared to stable weight. Weight loss was associated with reduced pain (mean -22.4 mm; 95% CI -44.4, -0.3), stiffness (mean -15.3 mm; 95% CI -28.50, -2.0), and function (mean -73.2 mm; 95% CI -147.9, 1.3) compared to stable weight. CONCLUSION: Weight gain was associated with adverse effects on knee symptoms, particularly in those who are obese and who have OA. Although losing weight is potentially beneficial for symptom improvement, the effects were more modest. Avoiding weight gain is important in managing knee symptoms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".