Mediterranean diet and knee osteoarthritis outcomes: A longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Mediterranean diet has several beneficial effects on health, but data regarding the association between Mediterranean diet and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are limited mainly to cross-sectional studies. We investigated whether higher Mediterranean diet adherence is prospectively associated with lower risk of radiographic OA (ROA), radiographic symptomatic knee OA (SxOA) and pain worsening in North American people at high risk or having knee OA. \n\nMethods: Adherence to the Mediterranean diet was evaluated using a validated Mediterranean diet score (aMED), categorized in five categories. Knee OA outcomes included incident (1) ROA, (2) SxOA, as the new onset of a combination of a painful knee and ROA, (3) knee pain worsening, i.e. a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index difference between baseline and each annual exam of ≥14%. \n\nResults: 4,330 subjects (mean age: 61.1 years; 58.0% females) were included. Based on a multivariable Poisson regression analysis, during a mean follow-up period of 4 years, participants who were more highly adherent to a Mediterranean diet (Q5) reported lower risk of pain worsening (relative risk, RR=0.96; 95%CI: 0.91-0.999) compared to those in Q1. In 2,994 people free from SxOA at baseline, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower risk for SxOA during follow-up by 9% (Q5 vs. Q1; RR=0.91; 95%CI: 0.82-0.998). No significant associations emerged between aMED and incident ROA. \n\nConclusion: Higher adherence to Mediterranean diet is associated with a lower risk of pain worsening and symptomatic forms of knee OA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".