Estimation of patient-reported outcome measures based on features of knee joint muscle co-activation in advanced knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromyography (EMG) is considered a potential predictive tool for the severity of knee osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms and functional outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analog scale (VAS), are used to determine the severity of knee OA. We aim to investigate muscle activation and co-contraction patterns through EMG from the lower extremity muscles of patients with advanced knee OA patients and evaluate the effectiveness of an interpretable machine-learning model to estimate the severity of knee OA according to the WOMAC (pain, stiffness, and physical function) and VAS using EMG gait features. To explore neuromuscular gait patterns with knee OA severity, EMG from rectus femoris, medial hamstring, tibialis anterior, and gastrocnemius muscles were recorded from 84 patients diagnosed with advanced knee OA during ground walking. Muscle activation patterns and co-activation indices were calculated over the gait cycle for pairs of medial and lateral muscles. We utilized machine-learning regression models to estimate the severity of knee OA symptoms according to the PROMs using muscle activity and co-contraction features. Additionally, we utilized the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to interpret the contribution of the EMG features to the regression model for estimation of knee OA severity according to WOMAC and VAS. Muscle activity and co-contraction patterns varied according to the functional limitations associated with knee OA severity according to VAS and WOMAC. The coefficient of determination of the cross-validated regression model is 0.85 for estimating WOMAC, 0.82 for pain, 0.85 for stiffness, and 0.85 for physical function, as well as VAS scores, utilizing the gait features. SHAP explanation revealed that greater co-contraction of lower extremity muscles during the weight acceptance and swing phases indicated more severe knee OA. The identified muscle co-activation patterns may be utilized as objective candidate outcomes to better understand the severity of knee OA.
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 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".