Lower‐limb muscle function during gait in varus mal‐aligned osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study quantified the contributions by muscular, gravitational and inertial forces to the ground reaction force (GRF) and external knee adduction moment (EKAM) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients and controls walking at similar speeds. Gait data for 39 varus mal-aligned medial knee OA patients and 15 controls were input into musculoskeletal models to calculate the contributions of individual muscles and gravity to the fore-aft (progression), vertical (support), and mediolateral (balance) GRF, and the EKAM. The temporal patterns of contributions to GRF and EKAM were similar between the groups. Magnitude differences in GRF contributions were small but some reached significance. Peak GRF contributions were lower in patients except hamstrings in early-stance progression (p < 0.001) and gastrocnemius in late-stance progression (p < 0.001). Both EKAM peaks were higher in patients, due mainly to greater adduction contribution from gravity (p < 0.001) at the first peak, and lower abduction contributions from soleus (p < 0.001) and gastrocnemius (p < 0.001) at the second peak. Gluteus medius contributed most to EKAM in both groups, but was higher in patients during mid-stance only (p < 0.001). Differences in GRF contributions were attributed to altered quadriceps-hamstrings action as well as compensatory adaptation of the ankle plantarflexors to reduced gluteus medius action. The large effect of varus mal-alignment on the frontal-plane moment arms of the gravity, soleus, and gastrocnemius GRF contributions about the knee explained greater patient EKAM. Our results shed further light on how the EKAM contributes to altered knee-joint loads in OA and why some interventions may affect different portions of the EKAM waveform. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".