MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890828221 · doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2018.09.006

Radiographic evaluation and pain symptomatology of the knee in severely obese individuals – controlled transversal study

2018· article· en· W2890828221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glaucus Cajaty Martins, Luiz Felippe Martins Filho, Andre Heringer Raposo, Raphael Barbosa Gamallo, Zartur Menegassi, Antônio Vítor de Abreu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACBody mass indexOsteoarthritisIncidence (geometry)Odds ratioArthritisInternal medicineKnee painVisual analogue scaleObesityRadiographyPhysical therapySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the prevalence of pain and radiographic degenerative arthritis in a group of severe obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > 35). 41 patients with an indication of bariatric surgery were studied. The group of severely obese patients was subdivided into two subgroups: those with BMI < 50 and those with BMI > 50 (n = 14). They were compared to control group (n = 39). The following parameters were analyzed and correlated: radiographic arthritis by Kellgren-Lawrence's classification, tibiofemoral axis, gender, age, and knee pain (visual analog scale [VAS]). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to evaluate in 21 severe obese patients and IN 19 controls. A higher incidence of knee pain was observed in the severely obese group when compared with the control group (p < 0.0001, odds ratio: 2.96). In the severely obese group, increasing levels of pain with aging were observed (p = 0.047). A positive correlation was observed between the incidence of radiographic arthritis and increasing age in the severely obese (p = 0.001) and control (p = 0.037) groups. The WOMAC index results were worse in the severely obese group when compared with the control group (p = 0.001, odds ratio: 18.2). A higher incidence of knee pain was observed in the severely obese group when compared with the control group. In the severely obese group, there increasing levels of pain with aging. A positive relation between the incidence of arthritis and increasing age was observed in the severely obese and control groups. The WOMAC index results were worse in the severely obese group. Avaliar a prevalência de queixas álgicas no joelho e de alterações radiográficas degenerativas (artrose) em grupo obesos graves (índice de massa corporal [IMC] > 35). Foram avaliados 41 pacientes com obesidade grave acompanhados em ambulatório de cirurgia bariátrica. Esse grupo foi subdividido em dois: obesos com IMC < 50 (n = 27); e obesos com IMC > 50 (n = 14). Os resultados foram comparados com os do grupo controle (n = 39). Foram avaliados a presença de artrose radiológica pela classificação de Kellgren-Lawrence, eixo tibiofemoral, idade, gênero e dor no joelho pela escala visual (EVA), foi feita correlação dos parâmetros entre si. Em 21 pacientes obesos e em 19 controles foi avaliada com o índice das universidades Western Ontario e McMaster (Womac). Observou-se maior incidência de dor no grupo de obesos graves em relação ao grupo controle (p < 0,0001, coeficiente de risco de 2,96). No grupo de obesos graves observou-se aumento da dor com a idade (p = 0,047). Houve correlação positiva entre progressão da idade e artrose radiográfica tanto no grupo de obesos graves (p = 0,001) como no controle (p = 0,037). A escala Womac detectou pior desempenho funcional no grupo de obesos graves em relação ao controle (p = 0,0001, coeficiente de risco de 18,2). Observou-se maior incidência de dor no grupo de obesos graves em relação ao controle. No grupo de obesos graves, a dor aumentou com a idade. Houve correlação positiva entre progressão da idade e artrose nos grupos de obesos graves e controle. O índice Womac apresentou pior desempenho no grupo de obesos graves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207