MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Activation Differs In Older Adults With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis With And Without Low Back Pain

2025· article· en· W4414264732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shraddha Sudhir, Nikou Nikoumanesh, L. Colby Mangum, Lindsay V. Slater

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisWOMACLumbarLow back painMultifidus muscleArthropathyOswestry Disability Index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Compare lumbar multifidus (LM) activation in older adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) with and without low back pain (LBP) and the association between muscle activation and subjective function. METHODS: Ten older adults with KOA and LBP (5F/5M, 63.2 ± 10.2 years, 95.6 ± 27.3 kg, 172.3 ± 12.4 cm), and 12 adults with KOA (5F/7M, 65.3 ± 9.1 years, 85.0 ± 23.3 kg, 170.4 ± 11.3 cm), completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). LBP was defined as having greater than a score of 12 on the Oswestry Disability Index. Resting LM thickness and dynamic LM thickness during a modified Sorensen test were obtained using ultrasound at the L4-L5 facet joint. Three images were measured and averaged for resting and dynamic images. LM activation ratio (AR) was calculated as the ratio of contracted LM thickness to resting LM thickness. Group differences in AR were compared using an independent t-test and Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated. Associations between LM AR and subjective function for each group were evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: Patients with KOA and LBP had lower LM AR when compared to those with only KOA (MD = .22 ± .23%; d = .94; p = .04). Greater LM AR was associated with greater disability on WOMAC subscales (pain: r = .66, p = .02; stiffness: r = .69, p = .01; physical function: r = .66, p = .02) and total WOMAC total (r = .68, p = .01) in the KOA group but not in the KOA + LBP group (pain: r = -.35, p = .33; stiffness: r = -.31, p = .38; physical function: r = -.09, p = .81; total score: r = -.20, p = .57). Greater LM AR was also associated with greater disability on KOOS subscales in the KOA group (symptoms: r = -.63, p = .03; ADL: r = -.61, p = .03; QoL: r = -.77, p < .01) but not in the KOA + LBP group. LM AR was not significantly correlated with KOOS pain subscale in both KOA (r = -.51, p = .09) and KOA + LBP groups (r = .43, p = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with KOA + LBP demonstrate lower LM activation than those with only KOA. Further, differences in AR-subjective function associations between the groups suggests that once patients with KOA develop LBP, it is too late to clinically modify their low back muscle activation. Thus, clinical importance should be given to improving low back muscle strength and activation in KOA 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→