Associations of blood pressure and arterial stiffness with knee cartilage volume in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the associations of blood pressure and arterial stiffness with knee cartilage volume in patients with knee OA. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed on the data from participants in a randomized controlled trial that identified the effects of vitamin D supplementation on knee structures and symptoms among patients with symptomatic knee OA. Brachial and central blood pressure, arterial stiffness indicators and knee cartilage volume were measured at baseline and the 2 year follow-up. Associations were assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 231 participants (average age 63.2 years), 48.9% were females. Higher supine systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly associated with lower tibial cartilage volume (systolic: lateral β -6.23, medial β -5.14, total β -11.35 mm3/mmHg; diastolic: lateral β -10.25, medial β -11.29, total β -21.50 mm3/mmHg). Higher supine systolic pressure was associated with lower femoral cartilage volume (lateral β -17.35, total β -28.31 mm3/mmHg). Central systolic pressure and arterial stiffness indicators (including pulse wave velocity, central pulse pressure and peripheral pulse pressure) were largely not associated with knee cartilage volume; however, higher augmentation index was associated with lower tibial and femoral cartilage volume (tibial: medial β -8.24, total β -19.13 mm3/%; femoral: lateral β -23.70, medial β -26.42, total β -50.12 mm3/%). CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure and arterial stiffness are associated with knee cartilage volume at several sites in knee OA patients. This supports that blood pressure and arterial stiffness may involve in the progression of knee OA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".