Concurrent Change in Quadriceps Strength and Physical Function Over Five Years in the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quadriceps weakness, associated with functional limitations, is a target of treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Limited data exist on the relationship between modest strength increases and improvements in function. The aim of this study was to evaluate concurrent change in strength and physical function over 5 years. METHODS: Among subjects from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) study, we excluded those with knee replacement after baseline. A 3-category variable defined whether, at 5 years, knee extensor strength increased, decreased, or remained within 15% of baseline, a clinically important cut-off. The outcomes were the 5-times sit-to-stand test, 20-meter walk test, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) physical function score, and 3 individual physical functions from WOMAC: arising from a chair, going up stairs, and getting on/off toilet. Linear and logistic models, stratified by sex, evaluated associations between change in strength and change in physical function over 5 years. To compare weaker versus stronger women, we stratified analyses at 56 Nm baseline strength. RESULTS: Among 1,534 participants (60.6% women), 22% of men and 30% of women increased strength by at least 15% at 5 years. Compared with women whose strength did not change, women whose strength increased had improved chair stand performance (odds ratio 2.27 [95% confidence interval 1.56, 3.30]) but no improvement in other functions. In men, an increase in strength was not associated with significant improvement in physical function. Similar results were observed for a 20% or 30% increase. CONCLUSION: Modest improvement in quadriceps strength was associated with improved chair stand performance in women but not in men. Most functions did not improve with an increase in strength, and targeted interventions may be required to improve functional status.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".