Gait patterns, symptoms, and function in patients with isolated tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and combined tibiofemoral and patellofemoral osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare hip and knee biomechanics during walking in individuals with isolated tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (TFOA), combined TFOA and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), and those without knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to compare patient-reported symptoms and function in individuals with isolated TFOA and those with combined TFOA and PFOA. Participants with and without knee OA were assessed and categorized into (i) no OA, (ii) isolated TFOA, and (iii) combined TFOA and PFOA, based on Kellgren and Lawrence diagnostic criteria. Quantitative motion analyses were conducted during walking, and hip and knee kinematics, and external moments were calculated. Peak values in the sagittal and frontal planes during stance phase were computed. Patient-reported symptoms and function data were obtained using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to compare between-group differences in gait and patient-reported symptoms and function data. The results showed no statistically significant differences in hip and knee kinematics and external moments between the three groups. Relative to those with isolated TFOA, individuals with combined TFOA and PFOA had greater pain (mean difference [95%CI]: 1.5 [0.05-3.1]), stiffness (0.8 [0.02-1.5]), and poorer function (5.4 [0.2-10.7]). In conclusion, the combined TFOA and PFOA radiographic disease pattern is associated with worse pain and function compared to the isolated TFOA disease pattern. The results of the present study provide no indications that treatments designed to change walking biomechanics should differ between individuals with isolated TFOA and those with combined TFOA and PFOA. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1666-1672, 2018.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".