Relationship between radiological severity and physical and mental health in elderly individuals with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between radiological severity, as assessed by the individual grades and grouped grades (grades "0 and 1" and "2 to 4") of the Kellgren-Lawrence scale (K&Ls), and depression symptoms, cognitive loss, risk of falls, and quality of life in relation to knee osteoarthritis, as assessed by other instruments. METHODS: Data recorded between 2013 and 2014 in Amparo (São Paulo, Brazil) were retrieved for analysis. A total of 181 elderly patients who had knee osteoarthritis and underwent a radiologic exam were evaluated for depressive symptoms, cognitive loss, quality of life, and risk of falls by the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), timed up and go test (TUG), and Berg balance scale (BBS). For statistical analyses, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Spearman's coefficient analysis were used. RESULTS: There was no significant relationship between the scores of the instruments investigated and the individual K&Ls grades. However, when the K&Ls scores were assessed by groups, grades "2 to 4" were associated with the worst WOMAC score and the highest frequency and risk of falls according to the BBS but not according to TUG. For the GDS and MMSE, no significant relationships with the K&Ls grades were found. In addition, the K&Ls grade was correlated with the WOMAC score, regardless of the domain. CONCLUSION: The radiological scores of the Kellgren-Lawrence (K&L) scale were associated with poorer WOMAC and BBS scores only when the K&Ls scores were evaluated in groups, and the WOMAC score was associated with an increase in the radiological grade.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".