Hip Abductor Weakness and Its Association With New or Worsened Knee Pain: Data From the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hip abductors, important for controlling pelvic and femoral orientation during gait, may affect knee pain. Our objective was to evaluate the relation of hip abductor strength to worsened or new-onset frequent knee pain. Given previously noted associations of knee extensor strength with osteoarthritis in women, we performed sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We used data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis study. Hip abductor and knee extensor strength was measured. Knee pain was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire and a question about frequent knee pain at baseline (144-month visit), and 8, 16, and 24 months thereafter. Knee pain outcomes were worsened knee pain (2-point increase in WOMAC pain) and incident frequent knee pain (answering yes to the frequent knee pain question among those without frequent knee pain at baseline). Leg-specific analyses tested hip abductor strength as a risk factor for worsened and new frequent knee pain, adjusting for potential covariates. Additionally, we stratified by knee extensor strength (high versus low). RESULTS: Among women, compared to the highest quartile of hip abductor strength, the lowest quartile had 1.7 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.1-2.6) times the odds of worsened knee pain; significant associations were limited to women with high knee extensor strength (odds ratio 2.0 [95% CI 1.1-3.5]). We found no relation of abductor strength to worsening knee pain in men or with incident frequent knee pain in men or women. CONCLUSION: Hip abductor weakness was associated with worsening knee pain in women with strong knee extensors, but not with incident frequent knee pain in men or women. Knee extensor strength may be necessary, but not sufficient, to prevent pain worsening.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".