A systematic review of the sex differences in risk factors for knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous systematic reviews focused on the evidence of common risk factors for knee OA (KOA); however, the effect and strength of association between risk factors and KOA might be different between the two sexes. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the current evidence on sex differences in the association between risk factors and KOA and their prevalence. METHODS: We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Web of Science. A methodological quality assessment was conducted independently by two researchers according to an adapted version of the standardized set of criteria known as the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The NOS, a star system, was converted to three categories of quality. RESULTS: In total, 27 studies reported sex-specific risk estimates on several risk factors for KOA. Out of the 22 longitudinal cohort studies (except one nested case-control), 12 were of good quality and 10 were of fair quality. The five cross-sectional studies consisted of one of good, three of fair and one of poor quality. There was an indication of sex differences in risk factors leading to higher risk of KOA: high BMI, alcohol consumption, atherosclerosis and high vitamin E levels in women, and high physical activity, soft drink consumption and abdominal obesity in men. Knee injury, high blood pressure and low step rate seem to affect both women and men. CONCLUSION: More good quality studies are needed to assess sex differences in risk factors for KOA, especially for symptomatic/clinical 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".