Comparison of Maximum Isometric Strength of the Hip Joint Abductor and Knee Joint Extensor Muscles between Knee Osteoarthritis Patients with and without Self-reported Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) often have impaired muscle function of the weight-bearing muscles, particularly in the knee and hip joints. This can lead to a significant loss of strength and power and may play a role in the perceived instability of the knee joint. The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum isometric strength of the hip abductor and knee extensor muscles between patients with KOA with and without perceived instability.Nineteen patients with KOA participated in this cross-sectional study and were divided into two groups. The first group (n = 10; women = 4, men = 6, mean age = 67.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 6.4 years) consisted of patients with self-reported instability in the knee joint, and the second group (n = 9; women = 5, men = 4, mean age = 69.6 ± SD 6.7 years) consisted of patients without self-reported instability. Functional and activity limitations were quantified using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Maximum isometric strength of the hip abductors and knee extensors was measured using a belt-mounted handheld dynamometer and expressed as torque (Newton meters [Nm]) by multiplication with the determined lever arm. Torque was normalized to body weight and height.Patients with instability (median WOMAC score = 68) achieved a significantly lower mean torque in hip abduction than the patients without instability (median WOMAC score = 39) (p = 0.01; Cohen's d = 1.31). There was no significant difference in knee extension torque between the groups (p = 0.202; Cohen's d = 0.58).KOA patients with instability were able to develop significantly lower hip abductor strength than those without instability, suggesting that targeted strength training of this muscle group may be important for this group of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".