MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088293285 · doi:10.1002/art.24606

The effects of impaired joint position sense on the development and progression of pain and structural damage in knee osteoarthritis

2009· article· en· W2088293285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David T. Felson, K. Douglas Gross, Michael C. Nevitt, Mei Yang, Nancy E. Lane, James C. Torner, Cora E. Lewis, Michael Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsProprioceptionOsteoarthritisMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyKnee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLongitudinal studyKnee JointSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although cross-sectional studies have reported impaired proprioceptive acuity in people with osteoarthritis (OA), there have been no longitudinal studies to evaluate whether those with such impairments increase the risk of OA or its worsening. METHODS: We studied subjects from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study study, a longitudinal study of people with or at high risk of knee OA. At baseline, we quantified acuity as the amount of a subject's error when attempting to reproduce a test knee flexion angle (a measure of joint position sense). We tested proprioception 10 times in the right leg and used a person's worst score as their proprioceptive acuity. At baseline and the 30-month followup, we assessed the presence of frequent pain, obtained Western Ontario and McMasters Universities OA Index (WOMAC) scores, and acquired posteroanterior and lateral weight-bearing knee radiographs read for Kellgren/Lawrence grade and individual radiographic features. We examined the relation of baseline proprioceptive acuity in quartiles with baseline knee pain (frequent pain yes/no), WOMAC pain score, self-reported physical function, and radiographic OA, and with changes from baseline in pain, physical function, and radiographic OA adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and quadriceps strength. RESULTS: At baseline, proprioceptive acuity was associated with the presence and severity of knee pain but not with the presence of radiographic OA. However, among the 2,243 subjects with baseline acuity assessments and 30-month followup, there were no strong associations between proprioceptive acuity and development of adverse OA outcomes. Acuity was not significantly associated with the new onset of frequent knee pain. Those with the worst acuity at baseline had slightly greater worsening of WOMAC pain scores (0.47 on a 20-point scale) and physical function scores (by 1.5 points on a 0-68-point scale) compared with those with the best proprioceptive acuity, whose pain and physical function score deteriorated less (for pain P = 0.05; for physical function P = 0.02). Radiographic worsening was not significantly associated with proprioceptive acuity. CONCLUSION: Proprioceptive acuity as assessed by the accuracy of reproduction of the angle of knee flexion had modest effects on the trajectory of pain and physical functional limitation in 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations158
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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