MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414397536 · doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2025-005890

Association between body weight fluctuation and progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a longitudinal cohort study

2025· article· en· W4414397536 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kai Fu, Win Min Oo, J.‐P. Pelletier, Johanne Martel-Pelletier, Yong Feng, Changqing Zhang, Qianying Cai, Changhai Ding, Flavia Cicuttini, David J. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueRMD Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGlaxoSmithKlineNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerShanghai Municipal Health CommissionNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsBody weightCohort studyWeight gainBody mass indexLongitudinal studyRadiographyCohortRisk factorObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between body weight fluctuation and the progression of knee pain and joint space loss () in people with radiographic knee osteoarthritis (RKOA) during a 48-month follow-up period. DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. We analysed body weight variability through metrics of average successive variability (ASV), and residual ASV from baseline to 48 months. We assessed the impact of the fluctuations on changes in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scores and JSL, defined as a decrease of ≥0.7 mm in medial joint space width (JSW), using generalised estimating equations to account for correlation within-person and adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2993 and 2789 knees from 2051 participants were included in the pain and JSW analyses, respectively. Higher body weight variability correlated with increased knee pain but not JSL. Participants with high variability (ASV ≥2.07 kg) had a greater OR of aggravated knee pain (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51, MD: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.54), particularly among initially overweight or obese individuals (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.62, MD: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.62) and those who gained over 3% body weight (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.33, MD: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Body weight fluctuations are a potential risk factor for symptom progression in RKOA, especially among overweight/obese individuals or those who gain weight. Maintaining a stable body weight may help alleviate the progression of symptoms related to knee osteoarthritis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRMD OpenSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207