Associations of varus thrust and alignment with pain in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations of varus thrust and varus static alignment with pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of participants from a randomized controlled trial of vitamin D treatment for knee OA. Participants were video recorded while walking and scored for presence of varus thrust. Static alignment was measured on standard posteroanterior knee radiographs. Pain questions from the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire were used to assess symptoms. We calculated means for total WOMAC pain in relation to varus thrust and static varus alignment (i.e., corrected anatomic alignment<178 degrees). Ordinal logistic regressions were performed, with responses on individual WOMAC pain questions as the outcomes and varus thrust and varus alignment as the predictors. RESULTS: There were 82 participants, 60% of whom were female. The mean±SD age was 65.1±8.5 years, and the mean±SD body mass index was 30.2±5.4 kg/m2. The mean total WOMAC pain score was 6.3 versus 3.9, respectively, in those with versus without definite varus thrust (P=0.007) and 5.0 versus 4.2 in those with versus without varus alignment (P=0.36). Odds ratios for pain with walking and standing were 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-11.9) and 5.5 (95% confidence interval 2.2-14.2), respectively, in those with and those without definite varus thrust. There were no significant associations between varus alignment and responses to individual WOMAC pain questions. Sensitivity analyses suggested that varus classified using a more stringent definition might have been associated with pain on walking and standing. CONCLUSION: In patients with knee OA, varus thrust, and possibly varus static alignment, were associated with pain, specifically during weight-bearing activities. Treatment of varus thrust (e.g., via bracing or gait modification) may lead to improvement of symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".