Quality of life and self-reported disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disorder and a major public health problem throughout the world. The aims of this study are to assess quality of life (QoL) in patients with knee OA using the generic instrument Short Form-36 (SF-36) and to determine its relationships with conventional clinical measures and self-reported disability. METHODS: Patients with knee OA (n = 112) with median age of 60 (45-76) years and 40 sex- and age-matched healthy controls were included in the study. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), symptom duration, and Kellgren-Lawrence scores were recorded. QoL, disability, and pain were assessed using the SF-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) index, the Lequesne index, and a visual analog scale (VAS) in patients. Also, QoL was assessed using the SF-36 in controls. RESULTS: Patients with knee OA had lower scores in all subgroups of SF-36 compared with controls. In patients, the SF-36 physical function (PF) and pain areas significantly correlated with effusion, VAS pain, and Lequesne and WOMAC subgroup scores (p < 0.05). The pain area of QoL did not show correlation with comorbidity with knee OA. We found that SF-36 and WOMAC pain scores were more severe in female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with knee OA had significantly poorer QoL compared with healthy controls. SF-36 is related to the clinical status and functional ability of patients with OA and can be used as a sensitive health status measure for clinical evaluation. Also WOMAC can be used as a sensitive measure for disability of patients with knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".