Impact of Pain Reported During Isometric Quadriceps Muscle Strength Testing in People With Knee Pain: Data From the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle force testing is one of the more common categories of diagnostic tests used in clinical practice. Clinicians have little evidence to guide interpretations of muscle force tests when pain is elicited during testing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of isometric quadriceps muscle strength tests by determining whether the relationship between maximal isometric quadriceps muscle strength and functional status was influenced by pain during isometric testing. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used. METHODS: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were used to identify 1,344 people with unilateral knee pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores of 1 or higher on the involved side. Measurements of maximal isometric quadriceps strength and ratings of pain during isometric testing were collected. Outcome variables were WOMAC physical function subscale, 20-m walk test, 400-m walk test, and a repeated chair stand test. Multiple regression models were used to determine whether pain during testing modified or confounded the relationship between strength and functional status. RESULTS: Pearson r correlations among the isometric quadriceps strength measures and the 4 outcome measures ranged from -.36 (95% confidence interval=-.41, -.31) for repeated chair stands to .36 (95% confidence interval=.31, .41) for the 20-m walk test. In the final analyses, neither effect modification nor confounding was found for the repeated chair stand test, the 20-m walk test, the 400-m walk test, or the WOMAC physical function subscale. Moderate or severe pain during testing was weakly associated with reduced strength, but mild pain was not. LIMITATIONS: The disease spectrum was skewed toward mild or moderate symptoms, and the pain measurement scale used during muscle force testing was not ideal. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the spectrum of the sample was skewed toward mild or moderate symptoms and disease, the data suggest that isometric quadriceps muscle strength tests maintain their relationship with self-report or performance-based disability measures even when pain is elicited during testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".