MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Perception about Running and Knee Joint Health among the Public and Healthcare Practitioners

2018· article· en· W2805324751 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-François Esculier, Natasha M. Krowchuk, Linda Li, Jack Taunton, Michael A. Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionMedicineKnee JointOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyAffect (linguistics)Risk perceptionPublic healthPopulationCross-sectional studyPsychologyAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There is conflicting evidence surrounding the effect of running on knee joint health, particularly as it relates to knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The perception about running and knee joint health could affect choices of activities, but remains undocumented in the population. Given the uncertainty in the literature, the objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of the public and healthcare practitioners (HCP) with respect to running and KOA. METHODS: A total of 397 public respondents (mean age=53.1 years, 163 females; 79 non-runners [NRUN]; 318 runners [RUN]) and 176 HCP (mean age=39.2 years, 68 females) completed an online cross-sectional survey. The survey included multiple-choice questions about perceptions of running as it relates to knee joint health, and about the appropriateness of maintaining running by individuals with KOA. The HCP subgroup was also asked about clinical recommendations to runners with KOA. Proportions (agree, uncertain, disagree) were compared between subgroups using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: In general, 11% of respondents perceived running as detrimental for knee joint health (NRUN=43.0%, RUN=5.0%, HCP=6.3%; p<0.001) while 21.1% were uncertain. Frequent running was perceived as a risk factor for KOA by 6.3% of respondents (NRUN=24.1%, RUN=2.2%, HCP=5.7%; p<0.001) and 26.5% were uncertain. Running long distances (marathons, ultra-marathons) was perceived by 15.5% as a risk factor (NRUN=32.9%, RUN=9.1%, HCP=19.3%; p<0.001), but 38.7% were uncertain. As for continuation of running in the presence of KOA, 14.7% of respondents agreed that it would lead to greater cartilage damage (NRUN=40.5%, RUN=10.2%, HCP=11.1%; p<0.001). However, 31.3% were uncertain about the appropriateness of running in the absence of symptoms (NRUN=34.2%, RUN=38.7%, HCP=16.4%; p<0.001). The subgroup of HCP reported having recommended to 76.1% and 30.7% of runners with KOA to modify training parameters and to quit running, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that many non-runners perceive running as detrimental to knee joint health. High rates of uncertainty warrant further studies to guide the population and HCP about the appropriateness of running for individuals with KOA, as it may influence choices of physical activity and clinical recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→