The Relationship Between Early-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis and Lower-Extremity Alignment, Joint Laxity, and Subjective Scores of Pain, Stiffness, and Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating disease that affects an estimated 27 million Americans. Changes in lower-extremity alignment and joint laxity have been found to redistribute the medial and/or lateral loads at the joint. However, the effect that changes in anteroposterior knee-joint laxity have on lower-extremity alignment and function in individuals with knee OA remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine anteroposterior knee-joint laxity, lower-extremity alignment, and subjective pain, stiffness, and function scores in individuals with early-stage knee OA and matched controls and to determine if a relationship exists among these measures. DESIGN: Case control. SETTING: Sports-medicine research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 18 participants with knee OA and 18 healthy matched controls. INTERVENTION: Participants completed the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis questionnaire and were tested for total anteroposterior knee-joint laxity (A-P) and knee-joint alignment (ALIGN). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: WOMAC scores, A-P (mm), and ALIGN (°). RESULTS: A significant multivariate main effect for group (Wilks' Λ = 0.30, F7,26 = 8.58, P < .0001) was found. Knee-OA participants differed in WOMAC scores (P < .0001) but did not differ from healthy controls on ALIGN (P = .49) or total A-P (P = .66). No significant relationships were identified among main outcome measures. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that participants with early-stage knee OA had worse pain, stiffness, and functional outcome scores than the matched controls; however, ALIGN and A-P were no different. There was no association identified among participants' subjective scores, ALIGN, or A-P measures in this 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".