Knee Frontal Plane Dynamic Alignment in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: Impact of a 12‐week Physical Therapy Program and Relationship with Functional Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A. Fuentes, Stock options or bond holdings, Emovi Inc; Employment (full or part-time), Emovi Inc. To evaluate the relationship to which gait frontal plane knee kinematics relates to physical functional scores before and after a physical therapy program. Prospective descriptive study. Orthopedic research laboratory within a University Hospital Research Centre. 30 symptomatic knee OA patients (23 women and 7 men) with mean age of 62.3 years ± 7.3 and a mean BMI of 31.1 ± 4.82. Standardized 12-week conventional physical therapy program. From 3D knee biomechanical assessment during treadmill gait, frontal plane knee kinematic parameters were measured, including: angle at initial contact, mean varus during single limb support, measurements of varus thrust. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected using WOMAC. Maximum isometric quadriceps and hamstring strength and stair ascent and descent time were also assessed. Each outcome measure was evaluated before and after the physical therapy program. A kinematic parameter characterizing a varus thrust phenomenon (difference in varus alignment between the second half of the single support phase and at the initial contact) was statistically improved (reduced) after the 12-week physical therapy program (p = .02). This frontal plane kinematic parameter was significantly correlated before and after the treatment; positively correlated with stair ascent and descent time test and WOMAC global score, and inversely correlated with the quadriceps and hamstrings maximum isometric strength. This biomechanical parameter was also statistically positively correlated before the treatment with WOMAC pain score, and with WOMAC stiffness and disability scores after the treatment. Mean knee varus angulation during single support also showed to be significantly positively correlated before and after treatment with stair ascent and descent time test. A generalized physical therapy program was able to address an increase varus dynamic alignment during gait. This parameter showed to be associated with both physical functional scores and WOMAC global score. The identified kinematic parameters could be used as clinical functional markers to help personalize the therapeutic decision process and as functional outcome measures to assess the impact of treatments in knee OA 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".