Varus Thrust and Incident and Progressive Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if varus thrust, a bowing out of the knee during gait (i.e., the first appearance or worsening of varus alignment during stance), is associated with incident and progressive knee osteoarthritis (OA), we undertook an Osteoarthritis Initiative ancillary study. We further considered hypothesized associations adjusted for static alignment, anticipating some attenuation. METHODS: Gait was observed for the presence of thrust by 1 of 2-3 examiners per study site at 4 sites. In eligible knees, incident OA was defined as subsequent incident Kellgren/Lawrence grade ≥2, whole- and partial-grade medial joint space narrowing (JSN), and annualized loss of joint space width (JSW); progression was defined as medial JSN and JSW loss. Outcome measures were assessed for up to 7 years of follow-up. Analyses were knee-level, using multivariable logistic and linear regression with generalized estimating equations to account for between-limb correlation. RESULTS: The incident OA sample included 4,187 knees (2,610 persons); the progression sample included 3,421 knees (2,284 persons). In knees with OA, thrust was associated with progression as assessed by each outcome measure, with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and pain on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. In knees without OA, varus thrust was not associated with incident OA or other outcomes. After adjustment for alignment, the thrust-progression association was attenuated, but an independent association persisted for partial-grade JSN and JSW loss outcome models. WOMAC pain and alignment were consistently associated with all outcome measures. Within the stratum of varus knees, thrust was associated with an increased risk of progression. CONCLUSION: Varus thrust visualized during gait is associated with knee OA progression and should be a target of intervention development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".