Association of Osteoarthritis With Changes in Structural Neuroimaging Markers Over Time Among Non-demented Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Although emerging evidence suggests that both osteoarthritis (OA) and brain atrophy (as assessed by structural neuroimaging markers) are associated with the risk of dementia, little is known about the association between OA and structural neuroimaging markers. This study aimed to examine the association of OA with changes in structural neuroimaging markers among non-demented older people. Methods: We examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between OA and structural neuroimaging markers (hippocampal volume, entorhinal volume, ventricular volume, and volume of gray matter of the whole brain) among non-demented older people. We categorized our participants as those without OA (OA−) and those with OA (OA+). At baseline, we included 1,281 non-demented older adults, including 1,050 without OA and 231 with OA. Results: In the cross-sectional analysis, we did not observe any significant difference in structural neuroimaging markers between the two OA groups. In the longitudinal analysis, we found that compared to participants without OA, those with OA showed a steeper decline in volumes of the gray matter of the whole brain among non-demented older adults. Conclusions: OA was associated with a steeper decline in volumes of the gray matter of the whole brain over time among non-demented older people.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".