Knee Extensor Power Relates to Mobility Performance in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quadriceps femoris muscle strengthening is a common rehabilitation exercise for knee osteoarthritis (OA). More information is needed to determine whether targeting muscle power is a useful adjunct to strengthening for people with knee OA. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the predictive ability of knee extensor strength and knee extensor power in the performance of physical tasks in adults with knee OA. DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional design. METHODS: Fifty-five participants with clinical knee OA were included (43 women; mean [SD] age=60.9 [6.9] years). Dependent variables were: timed stair ascent, timed stair descent, and the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Independent variables were: peak knee extensor strength and mean peak knee extensor power. Covariates were: age, body mass index, and self-efficacy. Multiple regression analyses were run for each dependent variable with just covariates, then a second model including strength, and then a third model including power. The R(2) values were compared between models. RESULTS: Power explained greater variance than strength in all models. Over and above the covariates, power explained an additional 6% of the variance in the 6MWT, increasing the R(2) value from .33 to .39; 8% in the stair ascent test, increasing the R(2) value from .52 to .60; and 3% in the stair descent test, increasing the R(2) value from .44 to .47. LIMITATIONS: The sample demonstrated very good mobility and muscle function scores and may not be indicative of those with severe knee OA. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with knee OA, knee extensor power was a stronger determinant of walking and stair performance when compared with knee extensor strength. Clinicians should consider these results when advising patients on exercise to maintain or improve mobility.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".