Association of Baseline Knee Bone Size, Cartilage Volume, and Body Mass Index with Knee Cartilage Loss Over Time: A Longitudinal Study in Younger or Middle-aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of knee bone size, cartilage volume, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline with knee cartilage loss over 2 years in younger or middle-aged adults. METHODS: A total of 324 subjects (mean age 45 yrs, range 26-61) were measured at baseline and about 2 years later. Knee cartilage volume and bone size were determined using T1-weighted fat-saturated magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, baseline knee bone size was negatively associated with annual change in knee cartilage volume at medial and lateral tibial sites (ß = -0.62% to -0.47%/cm(2), all p < 0.001). The associations disappeared at medial tibial site after adjustment for baseline cartilage volume and became of borderline statistical significance at lateral tibial site after adjustment for both baseline cartilage volume and osteophytes (ß = -0.29, p = 0.059). Baseline knee cartilage volume was consistently and negatively associated with annual change in knee cartilage volume at all 3 medial tibial, lateral tibial, and patellar sites (ß = -4.41% to -1.37%/ml, all p < 0.001). Baseline BMI was negatively associated with an annual change in knee cartilage volume, but only in subjects within the upper tertile of baseline cartilage volume, even after adjusting for cartilage defects (ß = -0.16% to -0.34%/kg/m(2), all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both higher baseline tibial bone area and knee cartilage volume (most likely due to cartilage swelling) are associated with greater knee cartilage loss over 2 years. A higher BMI was associated with greater knee cartilage loss only in subjects with higher baseline cartilage volume.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".