Is Tibiofemoral or Patellofemoral Alignment or Trochlear Morphology Associated With Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the associations of knee alignment or trochlear morphology (measured on imaging) with presence, severity, onset, and/or progression of patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). METHODS: We prospectively registered our protocol with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to report this review. We searched 10 electronic databases, screened citing articles, and reviewed reference lists. We extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Due to study design heterogeneity, we used a best-evidence synthesis to summarize the evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 publications (2,892 participants, 66% women) after removing 4 papers that did not meet our threshold for methodologic quality. There were 11 cross-sectional and 5 longitudinal papers. The target population was knee OA in 11 studies, PFOA in 2 studies, and other knee conditions in 3 studies. Alignment or morphology was measured using radiographs in 8 studies, magnetic resonance imaging in 7 studies, and computed tomography in 2 papers. Limitations include substantial heterogeneity in samples and methods, short followup times in longitudinal studies, and a small number of studies that specifically recruited participants with PFOA. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence that PFOA is associated with both trochlear morphology and frontal plane knee alignment, while evidence is limited but consistent in the sagittal and axial planes. These findings suggest that alignment should be evaluated clinically in individuals with PFOA. Clinical interventions targeting knee alignment warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.020 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".