MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399778800 · doi:10.5812/mejrh-141363

Prevalence of Knee Osteoarthritis in the United Arab Emirates: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4399778800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shabina Qureshi, Srilatha Girish, Praveen Kumar Kandakurti, Sampath Kumar Amaravadi, Animesh Hazari

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health Studies · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Across the globe, osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant burden on healthcare resources. This has led to renewed interest in accurately identifying cases in each area to implement effective management and prevention strategies. Objectives: To synthesize the available literature on the prevalence of osteoarthritis in the United Arab Emirates through a scoping review. Methods: An organized and systematic search of electronic databases (Ebscohost-Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Cochrane) was conducted to locate literature on the prevalence of knee OA across the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Studies contributing to the evidence were reviewed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: Of the 25,009 studies located through search strings, only three studies reported the prevalence of OA in the UAE, with rates ranging from 1.4% to 47.1%. Age and body mass index were associated with OA. Conclusions: The literature reports a wide prevalence of knee OA in the UAE, with variations due to geographical location, sample recruitment, and case definition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiddle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health StudiesSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207