Limitations in activities in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: The relationship with body functions, comorbidity and cognitive functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between body functions, comorbidity and cognitive functioning on the one side and limitations in activities on the other, in elderly patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. METHOD: A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted in which 288 patients with hip or knee OA were included. Patients were recruited from rehabilitation centres and hospitals (Departments of Orthopedics, Rheumatology or Rehabilitation). Apart from demographic and clinical data, information about limitations in activities, body functions (pain, muscle strength, range of joint motion), comorbidity and cognitive functioning was collected by questionnaires and tests. Statistical analyses included univariate and stepwise multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Self-reported limitations in activities (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were significantly associated with pain, muscle strength knee extension, range of motion (ROM) hip flexion and morbidity count. Performance-based limitations in activities (timed walking test) were significantly associated with ROM (knee flexion, hip flexion and knee extension), muscle strength hip abduction, pain, cognitive functioning and age. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported limitations in activities in hip or knee OA are largely dependent on pain and to a lesser extent on range of joint motion, muscle strength and comorbidity. Performance-based limitations in activities are largely dependent on range of joint motion and muscle strength, and to a lesser extent on pain, cognitive functioning and other factors. These findings point to the role of body functions in limitations in activities in OA of the hip or knee. Although less important, comorbidity and cognitive functioning play a role as well.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".