MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099039482 · doi:10.1186/ar4607

Infrapatellar fat pad in the knee: is local fat good or bad for knee osteoarthritis?

2014· article· en· W2099039482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Weiyu Han, S. Cai, Xingzhong Jin, Xia Wang, Benny Antony, Yuelong Cao, Dawn Aitken, Flavia Cicuttini, Graeme Jones, Changhai Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Research & Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilTasmanian Community FundUniversity of TasmaniaArthritis Foundation of Australia
KeywordsInfrapatellar fat padMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACKnee painOdds ratioConfidence intervalMagnetic resonance imagingKnee JointRheumatologyCartilageInternal medicineSurgeryRadiologyPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies regarding the infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP) mainly focus on the roles of the cells derived from the IPFP. There have been few clinical or epidemiological studies reporting on the association between the IPFP and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Our objective is to generate hypotheses regarding the associations between IPFP maximum area and knee OA measures in older adults. METHODS: A total of 977 subjects between 50 and 80 years of age (mean, 62.4 years) participated in the study. Radiographic knee osteophyte and joint space narrowing (JSN) were assessed using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International atlas. T1- or T2-weighted fat suppressed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was utilized to assess IPFP maximum area, cartilage volume, cartilage defects, and bone marrow lesions (BMLs). Knee pain was assessed by self-administered Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, IPFP maximum area was significantly associated with joint space narrowing (odds ratio (OR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62 to 0.91 (medial), 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.96 (lateral)) and medial osteophytes (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.76), knee tibial and patellar cartilage volume (β: 56.9 to 164.9 mm3/cm2, all P <0.001), tibial cartilage defects (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.81 (medial), 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.71 (lateral)), any BMLs (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.94), and knee pain on a flat surface (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.98). IPFP maximum area was negatively, but not significantly, associated with femoral cartilage defects, lateral tibiofemoral BMLs, and total knee pain or other knee pain subscales. CONCLUSION: IPFP maximum area is beneficially associated with radiographic OA, MRI structural pathology and knee pain on a flat surface suggesting a protective role for IPFP possibly through shock absorption. Consequently, we must pay special attention to IPFP in the clinical settings, avoiding resection of normal IPFP in knee surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations114
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Research & TherapySame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207