Statin Use and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes: A Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Statins have several pleiotropic effects, but the literature regarding the possible relationship between use of statins and outcomes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate whether statin use is associated with a lower risk of radiographic OA (ROA), radiographic symptomatic knee OA, and pain in North American individuals. METHODS: A total of 4,448 community-dwelling adults from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were followed for 4 years. Statin use (including the time from baseline and the type of statin) was defined through self-report information and confirmed by a trained interviewer. Knee OA outcomes included incident ROA, symptomatic knee OA (new onset of a combination of a painful knee and ROA), and knee pain worsening (i.e., a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index difference between baseline and each annual examination ≥14%). RESULTS: At baseline, 1,127 participants (25.3% of the total population) used statins. Based on a multivariable Poisson regression analysis with robust variance estimators, any use of statins was not associated with a lower risk of pain worsening (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-1.02), incident ROA, or symptomatic knee OA. However, statin use for more than 5 years (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.997) and use of atorvastatin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.996) were associated with a reduced risk of developing pain, while rosuvastatin use was associated with a higher risk (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12-1.24). Analysis with adjustment for the propensity score confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: The effect of statin use on knee OA outcomes remains unclear, although in our study, a significantly lower risk of developing knee pain was observed in individuals using statins for >5 years and those using atorvastatin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".