The Association of an Increasing Waist Circumference and Risk of Incident Low Physical Function in Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate an 8-year change in waist circumference (WC) with the risk of incident low physical function over 1 year in adults with, or at risk of, knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were used. Change in WC was measured from study enrollment (0 month) to the 96-month visit and classified as Increase (≥ 5cm gain) or Maintain (< 5cm gain). We identified World Health Organization (WHO) risk category based on WC at study enrollment as Large WC (males ≥ 102 cm, females ≥ 88 cm) or Small WC (males < 102 cm, females < 88 cm). The outcome was incident low physical function (≥ 28 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale) at the 108-month visit. To investigate the association of the 8-year change in WC with the risk of low physical function, we calculated risk ratios (95% CI) and adjusted for potential confounders. We repeated the analyses stratified by the WHO disease risk category. RESULTS: The Increase WC group had 1.43 (95% CI 1.04-1.96) times the risk of incident low physical function compared to adults in the Maintain WC group. Adults with a Large WC at baseline who increased WC had 1.55 (95% CI 1.00-2.37) times the risk of incident low physical function compared to those who maintained WC. Adults with a Small WC at baseline who increased WC had 1.97 (95% CI 0.84-4.63) times the risk compared to those who maintained WC. CONCLUSION: Increasing WC increases the risk of incident low physical function in the following year. Maintaining WC may mitigate developing low physical 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".