Association of quantitative measures of medial meniscal extrusion with structural and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis progression – Data from the OAI FNIH biomarker study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the association of quantitative medial meniscal position measures with radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression over 2-4 years. METHODS: The FNIH OAI Biomarkers study comprised 600 participants in four subgroups: 194 case knees with combined structural (medial minimum joint space width (minJSW) loss ≥0.7 mm) and symptomatic (persistent Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale increase ≥9 [0-100 scale]) progression; 200 knees with neither structural nor symptomatic progression; 103 knees with isolated structural and 103 with isolated symptomatic progression. Coronal double echo at steady state (DESS) MRIs were used for segmenting five central slices of the medial meniscus. Associations with progression were examined using logistic regression (adjusted for demographic and clinical data). RESULTS: Greater baseline medial meniscal extrusion was associated with combined structural/symptomatic progression (OR 1.59; 95%CI: [1.25,2.04]). No relationship was observed for tibial plateau coverage or meniscal overlap distance. The two-year increase in meniscal extrusion (OR 1.48 [1.21, 1.83]), and reduction in tibial plateau coverage (OR 0.70 [0.58,0.86]) and overlap distance (OR 0.73 [0.60,0.89]) were associated with combined progression. Greater baseline extrusion was associated with isolated structural and less extrusion with isolated symptomatic progression. The longitudinal increase in meniscal extrusion, and reduction in tibial plateau coverage and overlap distance were associated with structural, but not with symptomatic progression. CONCLUSION: Baseline measures of medial meniscal extrusion were consistently positively associated with combined radiographic/symptomatic progression and with isolated structural, but not with isolated symptomatic progression. These measures may therefore allow one to assess the risk of structural knee OA progression and to monitor interventions restoring meniscal position and function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".