How Hand Osteoarthritis, Comorbidity, and Pain Interact to Determine Functional Limitation in Older People: Observations From the European Project on OSteoArthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of comorbidity and pain in the associations of hand osteoarthritis (OA) with self-reported and performance-based physical function in a general population of elderly persons. METHODS: We studied data from 2,942 participants ages 65-85 years in the European Project on OSteoArthritis, a collaborative observational study of 6 European cohorts (from Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Outcome measures included self-reported physical function of the hands measured by the AUStralian/CANadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) for hand OA physical function subscale and performance-based grip strength measured using a strain gauge dynamometer. RESULTS: Comorbidity was not a confounder in the association of hand OA with self-reported and performance-based functional limitations, while the role of pain as a mediator was confirmed. Anxiety, depression, stroke, and osteoporosis were associated with AUSCAN scores reflecting more impairment. Depression and osteoporosis were associated with less grip strength. CONCLUSION: Although comorbidity was decidedly and independently associated with hand functional limitation, it had no effect on the relationship of hand OA with physical function. Hand OA was found to be associated with both self-reported and performance-based physical function impairment; the association was found to be partially mediated by pain, which reduced its impact.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".