Association of the sleep quality with pain, radiological damage, functional status and depressive symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the sleep quality and relationship between the sleep quality with disease-related variables, pain, functional status, radiological damage and the psychological status in patients with Osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Fifty two patients diagnosed with OA and 35 healthy control subjects were enrolled in the study. The demographic characteristics of the patients such as age, education level, and marital status were recorded. Disease related disability were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Generalized pain, generalized fatigue and knee pain were assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Psychological status were evaluated with the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. The radiological grade of knee OA was evaluated according to the Kellgren Lawrence score. For the evaluation of the sleep quality, the OA and control groups were assessed with the help of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results: The patients with OA had significantly higher scores in the subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, habitual sleep efficiency and total PSQI score compared to the healthy control group (p<0.05). According to the results of Spearman’s analysis, there was a significantly correlation between the total PSQI score with age, generalized pain, knee pain, WOMAC pain, radiological damage and depressive symptoms (p<0.05). Conclusions: The sleep quality is disturbed in patients with OA. Lower quality of sleep is especially associated with the pain, radiological damage and depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".