Pain, quality of life, proprioception and physical function in patient with knee osteoarthritis: Comparison of different grades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the differences in pain, quality of life and functional status of individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) between grades. The study included 90 patients with different grades (Grades 1, 2, and 3) of KOA. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform (KOOS-PS), Short Form Health (SF-12), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scales were applied. Timed Up and Go test (TUG), Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5STS), Stair Climb Test (SCT), 6-minute Walking Test (6MWT) and proprioception measurements were performed for functional assessments. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), Navicular Drop Test (NDT) and Foot Function Index (FFI) tests were used for foot posture evaluations. In the functional tests performed in the study, a significant decrease in test performance was observed in the 6MWT and SCT tests as the grade level increased (P<0.05). In TUG and 5STS tests, a significant decrease in performance was detected only in Grade 3 compared to other grades (P<0.05). Similarly, there were significant differences between the grades in all scales applied (P<0.05). In proprioception evaluations, similar medians were found between sides (P>0.05). In FFI averages, significant differences were found especially in pain (P=0.036) and insufficiency (P=0.008) parameters compared to grade 3. This study revealed noticeable differences in knee scores, pain, quality of life scales and functional tests at different stages of KOA. These differences were generally negative as grade levels increased. However, consistent with previous research, conflicting results were identified, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of KOA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".