Clinical measures and gait parameters in individuals with knee Osteoarthritis: a comparison between men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare men and women on muscle strength, pain, physical function, and gait spatiotemporal parameters at three speeds, verifying the correlation between variables. Forty-two individuals with KOA (21 women) participated in this cross-sectional study. They were assessed using the visual analog pain scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), lower limb isometric muscle strength, and gait kinematics on a treadmill at three speeds. The results revealed that women had worse clinical measures (WOMAC and muscle strength) (p < 0.006) and reduced step length (p < 0.05). The results also showed that women had more variables correlated with step length and stronger correlations (r = 0.33 to 0.83) than men. In conclusion, the moderate to strong correlation between step length and clinical measures observed for women suggests that step length could be a suitable parameter for assessing women with KOA. Also, the critical role of clinical measures indicates that it could be beneficial to associate the usual intervention with a psychosocial approach for women.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".