Osteoarthritis, Exercise, and Knee Replacement: Figure 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular, vigorous physical exercise confers numerous benefits. These include markedly postponing disability, prolonging life, strengthening bones, improving cardiac function and quality of life, reducing frailty, and retarding progression of aging markers in many organ systems1,2,3,4. Effects of exercise upon radiographic osteoarthritis (OA), particularly of the knee, have also been examined, partly because the original “wear and tear” hypothesis of OA development suggested that excessive weight-bearing exercise might cause accelerated joint damage and might result in more knee replacement surgery. The “wear” component of this hypothesis has been generally disproven, although elements of the “tear” component remain in the context of contact sports5. Pain-free exercise does not appear to accelerate OA development, and has been postulated to have a protective effect. For example, after accounting for body mass index (BMI), the Framingham Study6,7,8 reported no association between exercise and knee OA. Rogers, et al 2 showed a protective effect of exercise for knee OA. Manninen, et al 9 found a dose-response protective exercise effect for knee arthroplasty, and Racunica, et al 10 showed an exercise benefit to knee articular structures during development. Similarly, Jones, et al 11 found healthier cartilage in exercising children. Recently, we observed a trend toward fewer knee arthroplasties in vigorous lifetime exercisers, principally long-distance runners over hard surfaces12. Epidemiologic studies of OA identify age, female gender, and obesity as major risk factors for knee OA, but they do not include exercise (absent trauma) as a risk factor1,13,14. Indeed, numerous reports describe exercise as currently perhaps the single most important treatment for OA. Responding to issues related to … Address correspondence to Dr. Bruce; E-mail: bbruce{at}stanford.edu
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.040 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".