Impact of ultrasonography detected quadriceps calcific tendinopathy on pain and function in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calcific tendinopathy is most commonly seen around the shoulder joint. Only a few cases of quadriceps calcific tendinopathy (QCT) were reported. This study compares pain, function, clinical examination results, and ultrasonographic findings among primary knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients with or without ultrasonography-detected QCT. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 214 patients with knee OA. Ultrasonography (US) of knee joints was performed according to the EULAR guidelines. Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic grading was used to score OA. Pain and functional status were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-II (HAQ-II), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). QCT was detected in 50 out of 428 knees (11.6%), i.e. in 46 out of 214 patients (21.49%). Most cases of QCT were detected in the following sites: 36 in the vastus lateralis (72%), 10 in the vastus intermedius (20%), and only 4 in the vastus medialis (8%). QCT was found mainly in advanced KOA stages: 44 cases of QCT were found in patients with grade 4 KOA and 6 cases in grade 3 KOA. The presence of QCT showed a statistically significant association (p<0.05) with VAS, HAQ-II, WOMAC subscales, synovitis, and effusion detected by US. In knees with ultrasound-detected QCT, ultrasonographic features of CPPD were found in 31 knees (62%). QCT was found in cases with advanced KOA and mainly with ultrasonographic findings of CPPD disease. QCT could be considered an independent poor prognostic finding regarding pain, functional activity, and response to NSAIDs.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".