Effect of lower limb orthoses on cartilage in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review was to infer how the use of an orthosis affects cartilage in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A search was performed in four different databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed) up to the 21st of November of 2020 to evaluate how the patient's condition was monitored. The parameters chosen for this review were medial tibial cartilage volume, x-ray evaluation, Lequesne Index, pain visual analog scale score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale score. The initial search yielded a total of 12,622 documents. After thoroughly screening them, 38 were selected for analysis. Of the resulting data, only two objectively evaluated the cartilage (medial tibial cartilage volume, n = 1; x-ray evaluation, n = 1), with the remainder evaluating subjective symptoms (Lequesne Index, n = 8; pain visual analog scale score, n = 18; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain score, n = 10; Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale score, n = 10). The data did not converge toward any general outcome. The articles read demonstrated a great tendency to evaluate qualitative parameters pertinent to the symptoms of this condition or quantitative parameters related to the biomechanics of the knee. However, these parameters are not ideal because they are ambiguous. As such, a shift toward more objective quantitative parameters that directly assess the cartilage volume of the knee should be considered in future clinical trials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".