Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanical environment of the joint during dynamic activity plays a significant role in osteoarthritis processes. Understanding how the magnitude, pattern and duration of joint-specific loading features contribute to osteoarthritis progression and response to treatment is a topic of on-going relevance. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from recent papers that have contributed to knowledge related to three identified emerging subthemes: 1) the role of the joint mechanical environment in osteoarthritis pathogenesis, 2) joint biomechanics as an outcome to arthroplasty treatment of osteoarthritis, and 3) methodological trends for advancing our knowledge of the role of biomechanics in osteoarthritis. Rather than provide an exhaustive review of a broad area of research, we have focused on evidence this year related to these subthemes. New research this year has indicated significant interest in using biomechanics investigations to understand structural vs clinical progression of osteoarthritis, the role and interaction in the three-dimensional loading environment of the joint, and the contribution of muscle activation and forces to osteoarthritis progression. There is ongoing interest in understanding how patient variability with respect to gait biomechanics influences arthroplasty surgery outcomes, and subgroup analyses have provided evidence for the potential utility in tailored treatment approaches. Finally, we are seeing a growing trend in the application of translational biomechanics tools such as wearable inertial measurement units for improved integration of biomechanics into clinical decision-making and outcomes assessment for osteoarthritis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".