Relationship Between Body Mass Index and Osteoarthritis for Single and Multisite Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, or Knee: Findings From a Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an apparent association between hand osteoarthritis (OA) and adiposity is explained by the presence of OA at other joint sites. METHODS: Data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, first cycle, comprehensive cohort, were used. Respondents age 45-85 years (n = 18,279) were asked separate questions about doctor-diagnosed OA in the hand, hip, or knee. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between all combinations of hand, hip, and knee OA and body mass index (BMI) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). RESULTS: OA was reported by 34.6% of respondents, 28.0% with OA at >1 joint site. Hand OA was not significantly associated with BMI after accounting for OA at other joint sites, with similar findings for WHtR. All joint site combinations containing the knee were strongly associated with BMI, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from OR 2.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.53-3.37) for knee OA only with obesity class I to OR 9.98 (95% CI 7.12-13.88) for multi-joint knee, hip, hand OA with obesity class II/III. BMI distributions including knee OA were broader and shifted to higher BMI levels than those for hand or hip OA. CONCLUSION: Apparent associations between hand OA and BMI may be explained by concurrent OA at other joint sites. Recognizing that OA is a multi-joint disease is crucial for studies of the associations of adiposity with OA in a particular joint, especially the hand. The association between knee OA and BMI appears to be distinct from those for OA at other joint sites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".