Clinical Significance of Medial Versus Lateral Compartment Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Analyses in an Adult Population With Knee Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the comparative prevalence, associations with selected patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes of medial and lateral compartment patellofemoral (PF) joint osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Information was collected by questionnaires, clinical assessment, and radiographs from 745 eligible community-dwelling symptomatic adults age ≥50 years. PF joint space narrowing (JSN) and osteophytes were scored from skyline radiographs using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International atlas. Multilevel models were used to assess associations of compartmental PF joint OA with age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and varus–valgus malalignment, while median regression was used to examine associations with clinical outcomes (current pain intensity on a numeric rating scale [0–10] and the function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [0–68]). Results: Isolated lateral PF joint OA was more common than isolated medial PF joint OA, particularly at higher severity thresholds. Irrespective of severity threshold, age (≥2 odds ratio [OR] 1.19 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.12, 1.26]), BMI (≥2 OR 1.15 [95% CI 1.07, 1.24]), and valgus malalignment (≥2 OR 2.58 [95% CI 1.09, 6.07]) were associated with increased odds of isolated lateral JSN, but isolated medial JSN was only associated with age (≥2 OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.14, 1.27]). The pattern of association was less clear for PF joint osteophytes. Isolated lateral PF joint OA, defined by JSN or osteophytes, was associated with higher pain scores than isolated medial PF joint OA, but these differences were modest and were not significant. A similar pattern of association was seen for functional limitation but only when PF joint OA was defined by JSN. Conclusion: Isolated lateral PF joint OA is more common than isolated medial PF joint OA, and it is more consistently associated with established OA risk factors. It is also associated with higher, but clinically nonsignificant, pain and function scores than isolated medial PF joint OA, particularly when PF joint OA is defined using JSN.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".