Does knee malalignment mediate the effects of quadriceps strengthening on knee adduction moment, pain, and function in medial knee osteoarthritis? A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the effects of 12 weeks of quadriceps strengthening on the knee adduction moment, pain, and function in people with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) differ in those with and without varus malalignment. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized controlled trial of 107 community volunteers with medial knee OA was conducted. Participants were stratified according to knee malalignment (more varus or more neutral) and then randomized into either a 12-week supervised home-based quadriceps strengthening group or a control group with no intervention. The primary outcome was the knee adduction moment, measured using 3-dimensional gait analysis. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (measuring pain and physical function), step test score, stair climb test score, and maximum quadriceps isometric strength. Analyses of covariance were carried out based on intent-to-treat principles. RESULTS: Quadriceps strengthening did not significantly alter the knee adduction moment in either the more malaligned or the more neutral group (unadjusted knee adduction moment 0.12 and 0.05% Nm/BWxHT, respectively). Function did not improve significantly following quadriceps strengthening in either alignment group, but there was a significant improvement in knee pain in the more neutrally aligned group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Quadriceps strengthening did not have any significant effect on the knee adduction moment in participants with either more varus or more neutral alignment. The benefits of quadriceps strengthening on pain were more evident in those with more neutral alignment. Knee alignment thus represents a local mechanical factor that can mediate symptomatic outcome from exercise interventions in 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".