Knee loading in OA subjects is correlated to flexion and adduction moments and to contact point locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the association of contact point locations with the knee medial and lateral contact force (F med , F lat ) alterations in OA and healthy subjects. A musculoskeletal model of the lower limb with subject-specific tibiofemoral contact point trajectories was used to estimate the F med and F lat in ten healthy and twelve OA subjects during treadmill gait. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation of the contact point locations, knee adduction moment (KAM), knee flexion moment (KFM), frontal plane alignment, and gait speed with the F med and F lat . Medial contact point locations in the medial–lateral direction showed a poor correlation with the F med in OA (R 2 = 0.13, p = 0.01) and healthy (R 2 = 0.24, p = 0.001) subjects. Anterior–posterior location of the contact points also showed a poor correlation with the F med of OA subjects (R 2 = 0.32, p < 0.001). Across all subjects, KAM and KFM remained the best predictors of the F med and F lat , respectively (R 2 between 0.62 and 0.69). Results suggest different mechanisms of contact force distribution in OA joints. The variations in the location of the contact points participate partially to explains the F med variations in OA subjects together with the KFM and KAM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".