Quadriceps Rate of Torque Development and Disability in Persons With Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Declines in the ability to rapidly generate quadriceps muscle torque may underlie disability in individuals with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Objective To determine whether quadriceps rate of torque development (RTD) predicts self-reported disability and physical performance outcomes in individuals with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Methods This controlled laboratory, cross-sectional study assessed quadriceps strength and RTD in 76 individuals (55% female; mean ± SD age, 61.83 ± 7.11 years) with symptomatic and radiographic tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Early (0–50 milliseconds), late (100–200 milliseconds), and overall peak RTDs were quantified in the symptomatic (involved) and contralateral limbs and used to calculate bilateral average values. Disability was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale and 3 physical performance tests, including the (1) 20-m fast-paced walk, (2) 30-second chair stand, and (3) timed stair climb. Separate univariate regression models were used to determine the unique associations among measures of quadriceps RTD, WOMAC function score, and physical performance outcomes after accounting for quadriceps strength (change in R2). Results Greater involved-side late RTD and greater bilateral average early RTD were associated with faster walking (change in R2 = 0.05, P = .013 and change in R2 = 0.05, P = .043, respectively). Greater bilateral average late RTD was associated with faster walking (change in R2 = 0.20, P<.001) and faster stair climb (change in R2 = 0.11, P = .001). No quadriceps RTD variable was significantly associated with WOMAC function score (change in R2 range, <0.01–0.017). Conclusion Involved-limb quadriceps RTD was weakly associated with physical performance outcomes, but not self-reported disability, in individuals with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Bilateral average quadriceps RTD was moderately associated with walking speed. Level of Evidence Prognosis, level 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(9):694–703. Epub 22 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7898
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".