Differences in Baseline Joint Moments and Muscle Activation Patterns Associated With Knee Osteoarthritis Progression When Defined Using a Clinical Versus a Structural Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both structural and clinical changes can signify knee osteoarthritis progression; however, these changes are not always concurrent. A better understanding of mechanical factors associated with progression and whether they differ for structural versus clinical outcomes could lead to improved conservative management. This study examined baseline gait differences between progression and no progression groups defined at an average of 7-year follow-up using 2 different outcomes indicative of knee osteoarthritis progression: radiographic medial joint space narrowing and total knee arthroplasty. Of 49 individuals with knee osteoarthritis who underwent baseline gait analysis, 32 progressed and 17 did not progress using the radiographic outcome, while 13 progressed and 36 did not progress using the arthroplasty outcome. Key knee moment and electromyography waveform features were extracted using principal component analysis, and confidence intervals were used to examine between-group differences in these metrics. Those who progressed using the arthroplasty outcome had prolonged rectus femoris and lateral hamstrings muscle activation compared with the no arthroplasty group. Those with radiographic progression had greater mid-stance internal knee rotation moments compared with the no radiographic progression group. These results provide preliminary evidence for the role of prolonged muscle activation in total knee arthroplasty, while radiographic changes may be related to loading magnitude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".