The independent effect of pain in one versus two knees on the presence of low physical function in a multicenter knee osteoarthritis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although knee pain severity is thought to greatly impact function, the additional contribution of pain in 1 versus 2 knees is not known. We examined the relationship between unilateral versus bilateral pain with low physical functioning at baseline and 30 months while accounting for knee pain severity. METHODS: The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study is a cohort study of people who have or are at high risk for knee osteoarthritis. We defined low physical function as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical functioning scores > or = 28 of 68, consistent with poor functional outcome. Incidence and improvement from low physical function were defined as scores that declined below and improved above this threshold at 30 months. We examined the association between pain in 1 or 2 knees with low physical function with risk ratios (RRs) adjusting for known confounders. RESULTS: Of the 2,069 subjects (mean +/- SD age 63 +/- 8 years, mean +/- SD body mass index 31 +/- 6 kg/m(2), 63% women), the prevalence of low physical functioning was 50% lower among persons with unilateral pain compared with those with bilateral pain (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.5 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.3-0.7]). Of those without low physical functioning at baseline, the risk of incidence at 30 months was 30% less for unilateral compared with bilateral pain (adjusted RR 0.7 [95% CI 0.5-1.0]). Of those with low physical functioning at baseline, improvement was 1.7 times more likely for those with unilateral compared with bilateral pain (adjusted RR 1.7 [95% CI 1.3-2.2]). CONCLUSION: The presence of pain in 1 versus 2 knees provides important information regarding present and future physical functioning.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".