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 The WOMAC score was correlated with L1, L2, and L3 in LKOD ( P < 0.05; r = 0.240, 0.362, and 0.386) but not with L4 and L5 ( P > 0.05). WOMAC was also associated with HKA, MAD, and JLCA on the affected side ( P < 0.05; r = −0.127, 0.140, and 0.135). The unaffected side and d-values were not associated with HKA, MAD, and JLCA (the d-value represents the absolute value of the difference between the unaffected and affected sides, which represents the overall change in both lower limbs) ( P > 0.05). L1–L5 in LKOD was associated with HKA and MAD d-values ( P < 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".