Joint proprioception, muscle strength, and functional ability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that poor knee joint proprioception is related to limitations in functional ability, and poor proprioception aggravates the impact of muscle weakness on limitations in functional ability in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Sixty-three patients with symptomatic OA of the knee were tested. Proprioceptive acuity was assessed by establishing the joint motion detection threshold (JMDT) in the anteroposterior direction. Muscle strength was measured using a computer-driven isokinetic dynamometer. Functional ability was assessed by the 100-meter walking test, the Get Up and Go (GUG) test, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function (WOMAC-PF) questionnaire. Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between proprioception, muscle strength, and functional ability. Regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of proprioception on the relationship between muscle strength and functional ability. RESULTS: Poor proprioception (high JMDT) was related to more limitation in functional ability (walking time r = 0.30, P < 0.05; GUG time r = 0.30, P < 0.05; WOMAC-PF r = 0.26, P <0.05). In regression analyses, the interaction between proprioception and muscle strength was significantly related to functional ability (walking time, P < 0.001 and GUG time, P < 0.001) but not to WOMAC-PF score (P = 0.625). In patients with poor proprioception, reduction of muscle strength was associated with more severe deterioration of functional ability than in patients with accurate proprioception. CONCLUSION: Patients with poor proprioception show more limitation in functional ability, but this relationship is rather weak. In patients with poor proprioception, muscle weakness has a stronger impact on limitations in functional ability than in patients with accurate proprioception.
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".