The Prognostic Potential of End-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis and Its Components to Predict Knee Replacement: Data From the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine how 2 definitions of end-stage knee osteoarthritis (esKOA) and each component (knee symptoms, persistent knee pain, radiographic severity, and presence of limited mobility or instability) related to future knee replacement (KR). METHODS: We performed knee-based analyses of Osteoarthritis Initiative data from baseline to the first 4 annual follow-up visits, and data on KR from baseline until the fifth yearly contact. We calculated a base model using common risk factors for KR in logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations. We assessed model performance with area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow test. We then added esKOA or each component from the visit (< 12 months) before a KR and change in the year before a KR. We calculated the net reclassification improvement (NRI) index and the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index. RESULTS: Our sample was mostly female (58%), ≥ 65 years old, White (82%), and without radiographic knee osteoarthritis (50%). At the visit before a KR, Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grades (ordinal scale; AUC 0.88, NRI 1.12, IDI 0.11), the alternate definition of esKOA (AUC 0.84, NRI 1.16, IDI 0.12), and a model with every component of esKOA (AUC 0.91, NRI 1.30, IDI 0.17) had the best performances. During the year before a KR, change in esKOA status (alternate definition) had the best performance (AUC 0.86, NRI 1.24, IDI 0.12). CONCLUSION: Radiographic severity may be a screening tool to find a knee that will likely receive a KR. However, esKOA may be an ideal outcome in clinical trials because a change in esKOA state predicts future KR.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".