MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

O15 Does knee pain or radiographic osteoarthritis better predict future muscle outcomes? Findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study

2019· article· en· W2938334476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas R. Fuggle, Leo D. Westbury, K Jameson, Mark H. Edwards, Cyrus Cooper, Elaine Dennison

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyCohortCohort studyRadiographyKnee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disclosures: N.R. Fuggle: None. L. Westbury: None. K. Jameson: None. M. Edwards: None. C. Cooper: None. E. Dennison: None. Background: Sarcopenia is defined according to accelerated loss of muscle mass, strength and function and is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Osteoarthritis is the most common joint condition and can be defined clinically (through symptoms and signs) or radiologically. We investigated whether knee pain or radiologic osteoarthritis was predictive of future sarcopenic muscle outcomes in the Hertfordshire Cohort Study (comprised of UK community-dwelling older adults). Methods: We recruited 435 older adults (221 males and 214 females). At baseline, knee pain was defined as a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) knee pain score of ≥ 1 and radiographic osteoarthritis via plain radiography with a Kellgren and Lawrence score ≥2. At follow-up grip strength was assessed using JAMAR dynamometry and muscle function via gait speed. Whole-body dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used to derive percentage lean mass. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between knee pain and/or radiographic osteoarthritis and grip strength, gait speed and percentage lean mass in models unadjusted and adjusted for anthropometric and lifestyle factors. Results: The mean age of participants was 64.9 years (SD 2.7) at baseline and follow-up was approximately 11 years. There were no significant sex differences in the prevalence of radiographic osteoarthritis (men 90 (40.7%), women 84 (39.3%)), knee pain (men 103 (49.8%), women 111 (56.1%)) or the combination of radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain (men 54 (41.5%), women 54 (46.6%)). The following are from fully-adjusted analyses. Knee pain was significantly predictive of lower percentage lean mass (-0.58 z-score (-0.79, -0.36), p < 0.001) and grip strength (-0.19 z-score (-0.38, -0.00), p = 0.50). Radiographic knee osteoarthritis was also significantly associated with lower percentage lean mass (-0.27 z-score (-0.50, -0.04, p = 0.021) and grip strength (-0.39 z-score (-0.58, -0.21), p < 0.001). The combination of radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain was associated with lower percentage lean mass (-0.75 z-score (-1.03, -0.48), p < 0.001), grip strength (-0.48 z-score (-0.72, -0.23), p < 0.001) and a reduction in gait speed (-0.26 z-score (-0.50,-0.02), p < 0.04). Conclusion: We observed that the occurrence of knee pain predicted lower future muscle mass, radiographic osteoarthritis predicted lower future muscle mass and strength and the combination (knee pain and radiographic osteoarthritis) predicted lower future muscle mass, strength and function. These findings suggest that those individuals with co-existent evidence of knee pain and radiographic osteoarthritis are at particular risk of adverse muscle outcomes and, if our results are replicated elsewhere, these individuals should be targeted with interventions to ameliorate this decline in muscle mass, strength and function.

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)0.007
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207