Defining and measuring varus thrust in knee osteoarthritis: A scoping review of current evidence and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review investigated the definitions, assessment methods, and current applications of varus thrust (VT) in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science Core Collection) were searched in this scoping review for studies assessing VT during walking in adults with knee OA using the terms "varus" and "lateral" in proximity to thrust. Data were extracted and categorized by study characteristics (OA sample, publication year, design, and aim) and VT assessment protocol (method and definition). Results: = 19) methods. Designs included prospective, experimental, cross-sectional, and case series. VT was most often assessed to examine disease severity, progression, surgical outcomes, and symptom associations. Visual VT was commonly defined as dynamic worsening or abrupt onset of varus alignment during weight acceptance. Optical motion capture commonly measured VT as frontal plane knee excursion from foot contact to mid-stance, while inertial methods typically used peak lateral tibial acceleration or angular velocity. Conclusion: Despite growing research interest in VT, inconsistent definitions and measurement protocols limit comparability across studies and hinder broader adoption. Greater standardization and validation are needed to clarify its potential clinical utility in knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".