Cross-Sectional Contrast Between Individuals With Foot/Ankle vs Knee Osteoarthritis for Obesity and Low Education on Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) necessitates an understanding of the influence of patient characteristics on, and interrelationship among, HRQoL domains. In osteoarthritis (OA), these associations have predominantly been examined in hip/knee populations. We investigated whether there were differences in these associations between foot/ankle and knee OA samples. METHODS: Individuals seeking orthopedic care for foot/ankle or knee OA completed a questionnaire pre-consultation, including HRQoL domains (bodily pain [BP], physical [PF] and social functioning [SF], and mental [MH] and general health [GH]), obesity, comorbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics. Associations were examined via stratified path analysis (foot/ankle vs knee). Foot/ankle: n = 180, mean age = 55 (range: 25 to 82), 52% female. Knee: n = 253, mean age = 62 (range: 26 to 92), 51% female. RESULTS: The interrelationship among HRQoL domains was generally similar between groups. However, the influence of patient characteristics differed. Low educational status was associated with worse scores for GH, MH, and SF in the foot/ankle group, whereas no significant effects were found in the knee group. Obesity was associated with worse scores for SF, BP, and GH in the foot/ankle compared to the knee group. Patient characteristics explained considerably more of the variation in domain scores in the foot/ankle group. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in the impact of patient characteristics on HRQoL domains in foot/ankle versus knee OA patients. Therefore, a universal approach to patient education/intervention to improve HRQoL in lower-extremity OA is not likely to achieve optimal results. Based on these findings, we recommend joint-specific patient education, with a particular emphasis on patient characteristics among the foot/ankle OA population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.001 | 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".