MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120058211 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1616235

Development of a Tool for Analyzing 3D Knee Kinematic Characteristics of Different Daily Activities

2005· article· en· W2120058211 on OpenAlexafffund
Yue Li, Rachid Aïssaoui, K. Boivin, Katia Turcot, N. Duval, Arpan Roy, R. Pontbriand, N. Hagemeister, Jacques A. de Guise

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Notre-DameÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSquatting positionOsteoarthritisKnee flexionKinematicsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyKnee JointBiomechanicsKnee painSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a basic understanding of the kinematic characteristics of the knee during different daily activities based on a functional knee analyzer, which allows a three-dimensional evaluation of the knee in motion. The results showed that there was significant difference in knee motion between the patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and normal subjects during lunging, squatting and no weight-bearing knee flexion-extension. The data obtained by the knee analyzer was sensitive enough to distinguish young and middle-aged subjects from OA subjects during different daily activities; squatting gave the best results. On the other hand, the OA and elderly subjects had similar knee flexion and adduction angle profiles. This founding may partially explain the increased prevalence of OA in elderly people. The results support the use of functional knee analyzer for biomechanical analysis of daily activities, especially squatting, as a clinical evaluation tool for patients with knee osteoarthritis.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→