Infrapatellar fat pad volume and Hoffa‐synovitis after ACL reconstruction: Association with early osteoarthritis features and pain over 5 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP) morphology and Hoffa‐synovitis may be relevant to the development and progression of post‐traumatic osteoarthritis (OA). We aimed to compare IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis in participants with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and uninjured controls, and to determine their association with prevalent and worsening early knee OA features and pain in participants post‐ACLR. We assessed IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 111 participants 1‐year post‐ACLR and 20 uninjured controls. Patellofemoral and tibiofemoral cartilage and bone marrow lesions (BMLs) were assessed from MRIs at 1 and 5 years post‐ACLR, and worsening defined as any longitudinal increase in lesion size/severity. IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis prevalence were compared between groups with analysis of covariance and χ 2 tests, respectively. Generalized linear models assessed the relation of IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis to prevalent and worsening features of OA and knee pain (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—Pain Subscale, Anterior Knee Pain Scale). No significant between‐group differences were observed in IPFP volume (ACLR 34.39 ± 7.29cm 3 , Control 34.27 ± 7.56cm 3 ) and Hoffa‐synovitis (ACLR 61%, Control 80%). Greater IPFP volume at 1‐year post‐ACLR was associated with greater odds of patellofemoral BMLs at 1‐year (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence intervals]: 1.104 [1.016, 1.200]) and worsening tibiofemoral cartilage lesions at 5‐year post‐ACLR (OR: 1.234 [1.026, 1.483]). Hoffa‐synovitis at 1‐year post‐ACLR was associated with greater odds of worsening patellofemoral BMLs at 5‐year post‐ACLR (OR: 7.465 [1.291, 43.169]). In conclusion, IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis prevalence are similar between individuals 1‐year post‐ACLR and controls. Greater IPFP volume and Hoffa‐synovitis appear to be associated with the presence and worsening of some early OA features in those post‐ACLR, but not pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".