Joint laxity and the relationship between muscle strength and functional ability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish the impact of knee joint laxity on the relationship between muscle strength and functional ability in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 86 patients with OA of the knee was conducted. Tests were performed to determine varus-valgus laxity, muscle strength, and functional ability. Laxity was assessed using a device that measures the angular deviation of the knee in the frontal plane. Muscle strength was measured using a computer-driven isokinetic dynamometer. Functional ability was assessed by observation (100-meter walking test) and self report (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]). Regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of joint laxity on the relationship between muscle strength and functional ability. RESULTS: In regression analyses, the interaction between muscle strength and joint laxity contributed to the variance in both walking time (P = 0.002) and WOMAC score (P = 0.080). The slope of the regression lines indicated that the relationship between muscle strength and functional ability (walking time, WOMAC) was stronger in patients with high knee joint laxity. CONCLUSION: Patients with knee OA and high knee joint laxity show a stronger relationship between muscle strength and functional ability than patients with OA and low knee joint laxity. Patients with OA, high knee joint laxity, and low muscle strength are most at risk of being disabled.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".