Predicting knee adduction moment response to gait retraining with minimal clinical data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis is a progressive disease mediated by high joint loads. Foot progression angle modifications that reduce the knee adduction moment (KAM), a surrogate of knee loading, have demonstrated efficacy in alleviating pain and improving function. Although changes to the foot progression angle are overall beneficial, KAM reductions are not consistent across patients. Moreover, customized interventions are time-consuming and require instrumentation not commonly available in the clinic. We present a regression model that uses minimal clinical data-a set of six features easily obtained in the clinic-to predict the extent of first peak KAM reduction after toe-in gait retraining. For such a model to generalize, the training data must be large and variable. Given the lack of large public datasets that contain different gaits for the same patient, we generated this dataset synthetically. Insights learned from a ground-truth dataset with both baseline and toe-in gait trials (N = 12) enabled the creation of a large (N = 138) synthetic dataset for training the predictive model. On a test set of data collected by a separate research group (N = 15), the first peak KAM reduction was predicted with a mean absolute error of 0.134% body weight * height (%BW*HT). This error is smaller than the standard deviation of the first peak KAM during baseline walking averaged across test subjects (0.306%BW*HT). This work demonstrates the feasibility of training predictive models with synthetic data and provides clinicians with a new tool to predict the outcome of patient-specific gait retraining without requiring gait lab instrumentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".