MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072412536 · doi:10.1002/acr.20628

Longitudinal changes in intermuscular fat volume and quadriceps muscle volume in the thighs of women with knee osteoarthritis

2011· article· en· W2072412536 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Beattie, Norma J. MacIntyre, Khaled Ramadan, Dean Inglis, Monica R. Maly

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCohortNuclear medicineCardiologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To quantify rates of change in quadriceps muscle (QM) and intermuscular fat (IMF) volumes over 2 years in women in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) study and examine group differences between those with radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) and those without ROA. METHODS: The OAI database was queried for women ≥50 years of age in the incident and progression cohorts with and without ROA at baseline. Midthigh magnetic resonance imaging scans (15 contiguous slices, 5 mm slice thickness) of eligible women were randomly selected and anonymized. Image pairs were registered. QM and IMF were segmented in the 12 most proximal matching slices with the segmenter blinded to image time point. Age-adjusted differences in QM and IMF volume changes between groups were tested using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Forty-one women without ROA (mean ± SD age 60.7 ± 7.6 years) and 45 women with ROA (mean ± SD age 64.5 ± 6.7 years) were included. Mean ± SD QM and IMF volume changes in the non-ROA group were -4.1 ± 11.1 cm(3) and 3.4 ± 7.1 cm(3), respectively, and -5.4 ± 13.5 cm(3) and 3.1 ± 7.4 cm(3) in the ROA group, respectively. Age-adjusted between-group differences in QM and IMF changes were not significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Two-year changes in QM and IMF volumes appear consistent with aging and do not seem to be related to OA status. Direct comparison with a control cohort without OA risk factors could confirm this. Since group assignment was based on baseline data, there may have been women in the non-ROA group who developed ROA over followup, resulting in some overlap between groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207