Association of Pain Catastrophizing With Static Balance, Mobility, or Functional Capacity in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Blind Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate whether catastrophizing is associated with static balance, mobility, and functional capacity in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods A blind, cross-sectional study was conducted involving 60 volunteers (males and females), ages 40 to 80 years, with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Patients were recruited from a physical therapy clinic in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. The following measures were used for the evaluations: Pain-Related Self-Statement Scale, Functional Reach Test, Timed Up and Go Test, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index. In statistical analysis, histograms were created to determine distribution of data. Spearman's correlation coefficients (r s ) were then calculated to determine the strength of the associations among the variables. Results No significant correlation was found between the Pain-Related Self-Statement Scale score and the other clinical measures employed in the present study: Functional Reach Test (r s = 0.151; P = .249), Timed Up and Go Test (r s = –0.147; P =.264), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (r s = 0.023; P = .860), and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis (r s = –0.222; P = .088). Conclusions In this study, catastrophizing was not associated with static balance, mobility, or functional capacity in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".