Exploratory analysis of osteoarthritis progression among medication users: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted an exploratory analysis of osteoarthritis progression among medication users in the Osteoarthritis Initiative to identify interventions or pathways that may be associated with disease modification and therefore of interest for future clinical trials. METHODS: = 2938). Consistent medication users were defined for each medication classification as a participant reporting at all four annual visits that they were regularly using an oral prescription medication at the time of the visit. The exploratory analysis focused on medication classes with 40 or more users. The primary outcome measures were medial tibiofemoral joint space width change and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) knee pain score change (12-36-month visits). Within each knee, we explored eight comparisons between users and matched or unmatched nonusers (defined two ways). An effect size of each comparison was calculated. Medication classes had potential signals if (a) both knees had less progression among users compared with nonusers, or (b) there was less progression based on structure and symptoms in one knee. RESULTS: We screened 28 medication classes. Six medication classes had signals for fewer structural changes and better knee pain changes: alpha-adrenergic blockers, antilipemic (excluding statins and fibric acid), anticoagulants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antihistamines, and antineoplastic agents. Four medication classes had signals for structural changes alone: anti-estrogen (median effect size = 0.28; range = -0.41-0.64), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (median effect size = 0.13; range = -0.08-0.28), beta-adrenergic blockers (median effect size = 0.09; range = 0.01-0.30), and thyroid agents (median effect size = 0.04; range = -0.05-0.14). Thiazide diuretics had evidence for symptom modification (median effect size = -0.12; range = -0.24-0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Users of neurovascular, antilipemic, or hormonal interventions may have less disease progression compared with nonusers.
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 | 0.029 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".