Gait Adaptations in Youth With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) affects body structure and function and physical activity outcomes. The present study was undertaken to examine differences in gait kinematics during fixed‐speed treadmill walking for youth with JIA and typically developing (TD) youth. Methods Sagittal plane gait kinematics were obtained using a 12‐camera system (Motion Analysis) for youth with JIA (n = 30) and their age and sex‐matched TD peers (n = 30). Outcomes included disease activity, pain, well‐being, and peak sagittal hip, knee, and ankle joint angles. Kinematics were analyzed for the indexed leg (IL) (i.e., the affected leg of participants with JIA) compared to the dominant leg of TD participants and for the contralateral leg (CL) (i.e., the less/not affected leg of participants with JIA) compared to the nondominant leg of TD participants. Kinematics differences were investigated using multivariate Hotelling's T2 statistic (paired samples; α = 0.05) and simultaneous 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Potential confounders (age, sex, body mass index) were assessed using linear mixed‐effects models with random effect for pairs. Results Youth with JIA had low disease activity, pain, and disability scores. Deviations in bilateral joint angles were observed (IL P = 0.015, CL P = 0.009). Youth with JIA walked with greater initial hip flexion (mean difference IL 2.8° [95% CI –0.6, 6.2]; CL 3.0° [–0.9, 6.9]) and lower knee extension (mean difference IL –2.2° [95% CI –4.4, 0.1]; CL –3.3° [–7.4, 0.8]), and lower hip extension during terminal stance (mean difference IL 3.4° [95% CI –0.3, 7.0]; CL 4.0° [1.0, 7.0]). Conclusion Despite low disease activity, youth with JIA avoided the close‐packed knee position, commonly associated with joint inflammation and pain. These findings highlight secondary consequences of JIA and inform targets for physical therapy management for youth with JIA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".