Occupational Physical Loading Tasks and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review of the Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Purpose : To perform a systematic review with best evidence synthesis examining the literature on the relationship between occupational loading tasks and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Two databases were searched to identify articles published between 1946 and April, 2011. Eligible studies were those that (1) included adults reporting on their employment history; (2) measured individuals' exposure to work-related activities with heavy loading in the knee joint; and (3) identified presence of knee OA (determined by X-ray), cartilage defects associated with knee OA (identified by magnetic resonance imaging), or joint replacement surgery. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles from 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found moderate evidence that combined heavy lifting and kneeling is a risk factor for knee OA, with odds ratios (OR) varying from 1.8 to 7.9, and limited evidence for heavy lifting (OR=1.4-7.3), kneeling (OR=1.5-6.9), stair climbing (OR=1.6-5.1), and occupational groups (OR=1.4-4.7) as risk factors. When examined by sex, moderate level evidence of knee OA was found in men; however, the evidence in women was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Further high-quality prospective studies are warranted to provide further evidence on the role of occupational loading tasks in knee OA, particularly in women.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 it