MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405620747 · doi:10.12659/msm.946550

Five-Year Impact of Weight Loss on Knee Pain and Quality of Life in Obese Patients

2024· article· en· W4405620747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehmet Cenk Belibağlı, Mehmet Yiğit Gökmen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Science Monitor · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight lossQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineObesityKnee painPhysical therapyInternal medicineOsteoarthritisAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Studies on patients with obesity who lose a considerable amount of body fat show that the severity of knee pain and movement limitation is decreased. This study aimed to analyze the effects of weight loss on knee pain and quality of life in patients with obesity. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study included patients aged 18-65 years with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m² and above, who expressed knee pain in daily life routines and applied to the Obesity Center of Adana City Training and Research Hospital as of June 2018. The retrospective analysis included age, sex, weight, height, annual radiological imaging follow-up scores (Kellgren-Lawrence), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) scores, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores of the patients throughout the 5-year follow-up period. RESULTS The mean age of the 89 patients was 50.3±10.5 years, and 82% were women. The initial BMI, EQ-5D, VAS, and WOMAC scores differed significantly from the scores at year 5 (P=0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed the probability of reducing the progression of knee joint degeneration was 74% if the BMI reduction was greater than 13.3% over the 5-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The overall interpretation of the results was that a 13.3% or greater reduction in BMI in the first year, despite an increase in the following years, triggered improvements in various aspects of pain and functionality scores, improved quality of life, and reduced KOA progression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Science MonitorSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207