Body weight changes and corresponding changes in pain and function in persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a dose-response relationship exists between percentage changes in body weight in persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and self-reported pain and function. METHODS: Data from persons in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) study data sets (n = 1,410) with symptomatic function-limiting knee OA were studied. For the OAI, we used baseline and 3-year followup data, while for the MOST study, baseline and 30-month data were used. Key outcome variables were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function and pain change scores. In addition to covariates, the predictor variable of interest was the extent of weight change over the study period divided into 5 categories representing different percentages of body weight change. RESULTS: A significant dose-response relationship (P < 0.003) was found between the extent of percentage change in body weight and the extent of change in WOMAC physical function and WOMAC pain scores. For example, persons who gained ≥10% of body weight had WOMAC physical function score changes of -5.4 (95% confidence interval -8.7, -2.00) points, indicating worsening physical function relative to the reference group of persons with weight changes between <5% weight gain and <5% weight reduction. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest a dose-response relationship exists between changes in body weight and corresponding changes in pain and function. The threshold for this response gradient appears to be body weight shifts of ≥10%. Weight changes of ≥10% have the potential to lead to important changes in pain and function for patient groups as well as individual patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".