Coronal lumbar horizontal shift and lower limb force line in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a correlation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the correlation between the horizontal deviation of the coronal lumbar spine and the lower limb force line in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: A retrospective analysis of 233 KOA cases (47 male patients and 186 female patients, aged 50-83 years, with an average of 61.55 ± 8.72 years) admitted from 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2023 was conducted. Bilateral hip, knee, and ankle (HKA) angles; mechanical axis offset distance (MAD); joint line convergence angle (JLCA); lumbar-knee offset distance (LKOD, a self-tested angle reflecting the difference in the position of the bilateral knee joint relative to the lumbar vertebra); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score; and baseline data records were assessed for all patients. Results: < 0.05); LKOD was not correlated with HKA, MAD, and JLCA on the affected side. Conclusion: Lumbar horizontal deviation is a risk factor affecting all angles in both lower limbs and may aggravate knee bone and joint symptoms. The influence of horizontal direction changes in the lumbar spine on KOA, especially change in L3, should be prioritized in the clinical treatment and research of KOA.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".