Contribution of Psychosocial and Mechanical Variables to Physical Performance Measures in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This cross-sectional study evaluated the relative contributions of psychosocial and mechanical variables to physical performance measures in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). SUBJECTS: Fifty-four subjects (age, in years: mean=68.3, SD=8.7, range=50-87) with radiographically confirmed knee OA were included in this study. METHODS: Physical performance measures included the Six-Minute Walk Test (SMW), the Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG), and a stair-climbing task (STR). Responses to psychosocial questionnaires that reflect depression, anxiety, and self-efficacy (a person's confidence in his or her ability to complete a task) were collected. Mechanical variables measured included body mass index and knee strength (force-generating capacity of muscle). Stepwise linear regressions were performed with the SMW, TUG, and STR as separate dependent variables. RESULTS: Functional self-efficacy explained the greatest amount of variance in all performance measures, contributing 45% or more. Knee strength and body weight also explained some variance in performance measures. Anxiety and depression did not explain any variance in performance. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists evaluating the significance of the SMW, TUG, and STR scores in subjects with knee OA should note that a large part of each score reflects self-efficacy, or confidence, for physical tasks, with some contributions from knee strength and body weight.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".