Increased knee muscle strength is associated with decreased activity limitations in established knee osteoarthritis: Two-year follow-up study in the Amsterdam osteoarthritis cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between changes in knee muscle strength (extensor and flexor muscles separately, and mean values) and changes in activity limitations in patients with established knee osteoarthritis at 2 years. METHODS: Data from 186 patients with knee osteoarthritis, part of the Amsterdam Osteoarthritis cohort, were gathered at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. Strength of the knee extensor and flexor muscles were assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer. Activity limitations were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - Physical Function subscale, the Get Up and Go test (GUG), and the 12-steps stairs test. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to assess the association between changes in muscle strength and changes in activity limitations, adjusting for relevant confounders and baseline activity limitations. RESULTS: There was an overall 16% increase in mean knee muscle strength (p < 0.001), 19% increase in knee extensor muscle strength (p < 0.001), and 17% increase in knee flexor muscle strength (p < 0.001) at 2 years. Increased mean knee muscle strength and knee flexor muscle strength were associated with better self-reported physical function (WOMAC) (b = -5.7, p = 0.03 and b = -6.2, p = 0.05), decreased time on the GUG (b = -1.2, p = 0.003 and b = -1.4, p = 0.05) and decreased time on the stairs test (b = -4.4, p < 0.001 and b = -6.6, p < 0.001). Increased extensor muscle strength was associated only with decreased time on the stairs test (b = -2.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increased knee muscle strength, mainly in the knee flexors, was associated with decreased activity limitations in patients with knee osteoarthritis at 2 years. Thus, differences in muscle strength may partially explain the between-patients variability in activity limitations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".