Screening Clinical Changes for the Diagnosis of Early Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The main objective was to evaluate differences in the clinical, motor, or functional variables in patients with Early Osteoarthritis (EOA) and individuals at risk of developing osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. All the participants were divided into two groups: EOA patients and healthy subjects (HS) at risk of developing OA. The main outcomes were clinical tests, such as those of knee morphology, instability, or proprioception; motor and functional variables, such as knee strength, range of motion, walking speed, and the sit-to-stand test; pain and disability, assessed through the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) scales; and knee alignment and leg length inequality, assessed via X-ray images. Results: A total of 97 participants were included (54 EOA and 43 HS). Patients with EOA showed a greater presence of knee pain (p < 0.01). In addition, more EOA patients showed instability both in the left (p < 0.01) and right legs (p < 0.05). Regarding the knee alignment variable, significant differences were found (p < 0.04), with more patients with EOA diagnosed as possessing a varus alignment. In addition, EOA patients showed lower knee strength, since statistically significant differences were found regarding flexion and extension strength in the left leg (Mean Difference (MD): 12.92; p = 0.03; d = −0.46 and MD:7.81; p = 0.04; d = −0.39). Differences were found for the sit-to-stand test scores, showing lower results for the EOA group (MD: −1.91; p < 0.01; d = 0.54). Conclusions: The results of this research show statistically significant differences between patients with EOA and HS at risk of developing OA with respect to pain, disability, instability, knee strength, and the sit-to-stand test. Our results suggest that the evaluation of clinical, motor, and functional features could contribute to an early management of knee OA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".