MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

More knee pain, less hip and ankle joint power: The relationship between knee osteoarthritis pain and joint power

2025· article· en· W4413890038 on OpenAlexafffund
Dalia Grad, Kathryn F. Webster, Stacey M. Acker, Nikolas K. Knowles, Monica R. Maly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArthritis Society
KeywordsAnkleOsteoarthritisMedicineKnee JointJoint (building)Joint painKnee painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryEngineeringAlternative medicineStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

]. Participants completed six cycling bouts at three seat heights (20°, 30°, 40° minimum knee flexion angle) and two workloads (40 W, 75 W) on a stationary bike. Self-reported pain was recorded for each knee before the first bout and after each bout. Three-dimensional kinematics and kinetics were collected synchronously with motion capture and instrumented pedals. A greater workload was associated with greater hip power asymmetry (p < 0.01); otherwise, seat height and workload did not affect power asymmetry (p > 0.05). Relationships were found between knee pain asymmetry and hip, ankle and total leg power asymmetry (p < 0.01), but not knee (p > 0.05). The hip, ankle and total leg with the more painful knee produced less power than the opposite side. The more painful knee cannot be assumed to produce less power than the contralateral side. These findings show that, at low workloads, clinicians can adjust seat height to patient preference without affecting joint power production during cycling.

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)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanics→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→