The Association of Stair Climbing Behaviors With Hazard of All-Cause Mortality in Adults With or At Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of stair climbing difficulty and stair climbing frequency with the risk of all-cause mortality over 13 years in adults with or at high risk for knee OA. METHODS: We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults with or at high risk for symptomatic knee OA. The exposures were stair climbing difficulty and frequency, assessed at baseline using self-report questionnaires. The outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed from baseline through 13 years of follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to investigate the association between stair climbing exposures and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Three hundred seven (6.81%) and 310 (6.84%) participants in the difficulty and frequency samples, respectively, died during 13 years of follow-up. Those who were limited in any capacity in terms of their stair climbing ability had 54% to 84% greater hazard of all-cause mortality, and those who climbed at least 7 flights of stairs per week had 38% lower hazard of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Adults with or at high risk for knee OA who report difficulty with climbing stairs or who infrequently use stairs are at greater hazard of all-cause mortality. Stair climbing difficulty and frequency are simple to collect and changes may occur early in OA progression, allowing for early intervention. Brief questions about stair climbing behaviors can serve as a functional vital sign within the clinician's toolbox.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".