Do worsening knee radiographs mean greater chances of severe functional limitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Development of functional limitation is thought to be unrelated to changes in severity of radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We evaluated the relationship of change in radiographic OA to the incidence of severe functional limitation. METHODS: Participants of the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study, a cohort study of persons with or at high risk of knee OA, were evaluated at 0 and 30 months. Subjects were classified as having no, incident, stable, or worsening radiographic OA. Incidence of severe functional limitation was defined by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scores (≥36.1/68) and walking speed (≤1.0 meter/second) at 30 months. The relationship of the change in radiographic OA to the incidence of severe functional limitation was evaluated by calculating risk ratios adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of the 2,210 subjects included (mean age 62 years, mean body mass index 30 kg/m², 60% women), 53% had no, 6% had incident, 14% had stable, and 27% had worsening radiographic OA. Persons with incident radiographic OA had 1.9 and 1.8 times the risk by WOMAC physical function score and walking speed, respectively, to have incident severe functional limitation compared with those with no radiographic OA over 30 months. Compared with those with stable radiographic OA, persons with worsening radiographic OA had 2.2 and 2.3 times the risk of incident severe functional limitation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Changes in structural disease are associated with the development of severe functional limitations in persons with or even at high risk of knee OA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".