Old Before Their Time? The Impact of Osteoarthritis on Younger Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is frequently perceived as a disease of the elderly and an inevitable result of aging. Because OA studies often are restricted to older adults, there is limited information on OA in younger adults. This study describes the burden of OA across a wide age range and compares younger and older adults. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of the Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada - Arthritis Component, a nationally representative survey of Canadians ≥20 years who reported an arthritis diagnosis in the Canadian Community Health Survey, a general health population survey. Analyses were restricted to those reporting OA and no other kind of arthritis (n = 1,749). RESULTS: In the representative group with OA, 55.4% were younger than 65 years. The mean age at diagnosis was 50 years, with 30.4% reporting being diagnosed before age 45 years. Younger adults reported similar symptom severity as their older counterparts with OA regarding the mean number of affected joint sites, severity of pain and fatigue, and activity limitations. In the youngest age group, those with OA were significantly more likely to report fair or poor overall and mental health and life dissatisfaction compared with their general counterparts; the same was not the case in the oldest age group. CONCLUSION: OA is not uncommon among younger and middle-aged adults, and they experience OA impacts comparable with those for older adults. These findings suggest that younger adults with OA will live many years with symptoms and disability and highlight a need for effective OA management across ages.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".