Relationship between the ability to walk long distances and to climb up and down stairs with the health-related quality of life of older adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To investigate the relationship between physical capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Method A cross-sectional study was carried out, in which 67 older people (55 women and 12 men) diagnosed with KOA completed the physical function tests: Timed Up and Go (TUG); 30-second Chair Stand Test (30CST); Stair Climb Test (SCT); 40m Fast-Paced Walk Test (40FPWT); and Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). HRQoL was measured using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyzes were used to explore the relationship between the variables. Results Patients were predominantly female, overweight, inactive, non-depressed, with bilateral KOA and in severe pain. In HRQoL, the domains showed low performance compared to healthy individuals. An association was observed between 30CST, SCT, 40FPWT and 6MWT with pain and physical function and an association of 30CTS, 6MWT with stiffness (R² = 0.064 to 0.304, p<0.05). In the multivariate analysis, BMI, sex and bilateral impairment were also considered as independent variables, resulting in significant associations of the 6MWT and BMI with pain (ß[6MWT]=0.121, 95%CI 0.005 to 0.237; ß[BMI]=0.022, 95CI and sex (ß=10.724, 95%CI 2.985 to 18.463) with physical function. Conclusion The results suggests positive association between TSDE and physical function and negative associations between physical capacity on 6MWT on pain and stifness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".