The Relationship between Quadriceps Thickness, Radiological Staging, and Clinical Parameters in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between clinical parameters, radiological staging and evaluated ultrasound results of quadriceps muscle thickness in knee osteoarthritis. [Subjects] The current study comprised 75 patients (51 female, 24 male) with a mean age of 57.9±5.2 years (range 40-65 years) and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis in both knees. [Methods] Knee radiographs were evaluated according to the Kellgren-Lawrence grading system. Clinical evaluation performed with the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the 50-meter walking test, and the 10-step stair test. The thickness of the muscle layer of the quadriceps femoris (M. vastus intermedius and M. rectus femoris) was measured with high-resolution real-time ultrasonography. [Results] The results of this study showed a significant negative correlation between quadriceps thickness and age, duration of disease, stage of knee OA, and VAS, WOMAC, 50-m walking test, and 10-step stair test scores. [Conclusion] The evaluation of quadriceps muscle thickness with ultrasound can be considered a practical and economical method in the diagnosis and follow-up of knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".