Elderly Runners and Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of running on the onset of osteoarthritis (OA) is controversial. This study compared the incidence of OA in elderly runners versus nonrunners. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, and Web of Science databases were accessed in January 2022. All the published clinical studies investigating OA onset in runners versus non-runners were considered. Studies reporting data on OA and participants in other sports were excluded. Only studies investigating patients with a mean age older than 55 years were considered. The methodological quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Data from 3001 participants and 6674 joints were retrieved. The mean age was 59.4±2.7 years. The mean body mass index was 24.6±2.5 kg/m2. The 5 included articles (963 runners, 2038 nonrunners) did not report significant differences in runners compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Middle aged runners did not present greater imaging or clinical signs of OA compared with nonrunner controls. Running at elite or recreational level did not increase the rate of OA progression in individuals older than 50 years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".