Assessment of factors affecting quality of life in patients with chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis and spondylosis: spine <i>versus</i> knee?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is no study comparing knee and spine osteoarthritis. The purpose of the study is to examine the effects of pain and disability on quality of life (QoL) and the factors affecting QoL in patients with knee osteoarthritis and spondylosis. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 114 patients with spondylosis and 126 patients with knee osteoarthritis. Demographic data were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), and the Short Form Health Questionnaire (SF-36) were filled out. RESULTS: Statistically, patients with spondylosis and knee osteoarthritis did not differ significantly in terms of gender, age, body mass index, number of concomitant conditions, marital status, years of schooling, pain scores, or SF-36 characteristics. SF-36 physical function, vitality, and mental health assessments were lower in women than men, while VAS scores were higher. There was no correlation between marital status, educational level, and QoL subscales. WOMAC and RMQ scores were negatively correlated with the SF-36 subscales. RMS scores were not related to mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Spondylosis and knee osteoarthritis affect all subscales of QoL in the same way. The management of patients with spondylosis and knee osteoarthritis should focus on pain and functionality to improve QoL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".