Longitudinal Associations Between Baseline Sarcopenia and Knee Osteoarthritis Progression and Risk of Knee Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sarcopenia and knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are common conditions in older adults, but their relationship is controversial. We aimed to examine the potential role of sarcopenia in KOA progression and subsequent knee replacement (KR). METHODS: Using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, baseline sarcopenia was first screened according to the EWGSOP2 algorithm using the SARC-F (Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls) questionnaire (screened sarcopenia [Scre-S]), then further assessed combined with the five times chair-stand-test (probable sarcopenia [Prob-S]). Radiographic KOA progression was evaluated by changes in Kellgren-Lawrence Grade and Osteoarthritis Research Society International atlas scores from baseline to the 24- and 48-month follow-ups. Symptomatic progression was evaluated similarly using the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. The associations of sarcopenia with radiographic or symptomatic progression and subsequent KR were analyzed before and after adjusting for potential confounders and propensity score (PS) matching. RESULTS: A total of 4,316 participants were included; 27.2% were Scre-S and 16.8% were Prob-S. Baseline Scre-S and Prob-S were positively associated with both radiographic and symptomatic progression in KOA over 24 and 48 months. Both Scre-S and Prob-S were associated with a higher risk of subsequent KR (Scre-S: hazard ratio [HR] 3.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.18 to 4.62; Prob-S: HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.87 to 2.81). These results remained significant in the PS-matched cohort. CONCLUSION: Scre-S and Prob-S were significantly and longitudinally associated with both radiographic and symptomatic progression in KOA and subsequent KR. Our findings indicated a potential causal role of sarcopenia in KOA progression and highlighted its potentially therapeutic effect in KOA management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".