MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7164745461 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20687811

Correlation Of Knee Alignment with Ankle and Hindfoot Alignment and Clinical Severity in Grade IV Osteoarthritis Knee: A Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· W7164745461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dr Navin Sagar , Dr Diganta Borah , Dr Himanshu Kataria

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisCoronal planeAnkleKnee JointRadiographyRheumatologyOrthopedic surgeryRadiological weapon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a chronic degenerative disorder characterized by progressive joint deterioration. Coronal plane malalignment of the knee joint is frequently associated with advanced osteoarthritis. However, limited evidence exists regarding the relationship between knee alignment and concurrent ankle and hindfoot alignment changes in patients with severe knee OA. Objective: To evaluate the correlation of knee alignment with ankle and hindfoot alignment and clinical severity in patients with Grade IV knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with primary knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade IV) according to American College of Rheumatology criteria were enrolled after obtaining informed consent. Knee alignment was assessed using hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle on full-length weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs. Ankle and hindfoot alignment were evaluated using five radiological parameters: angle between mid-diaphyseal line of tibia and calcaneus (ADTC), tibiotalar angle (TTA), tibial anterior surface angle (TAS), talar tilt angle (TT), and angle between ground surface and distal tibial plafond (GP). Clinical severity was assessed using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used for statistical analysis. Results: The mean age of participants was 59.98 ± 8.44 years, with 62.3% females. Mean disease duration was 6.67 ± 2.86 years. The mean HKA angle was 13.24 ± 3.92 degrees, indicating substantial varus malalignment. HKA showed statistically significant positive correlations with ADTC (r=0.262, p=0.001), TTA (r=0.330, p<0.001), TAS (r=0.343, p<0.001), and GP (r=0.421, p<0.001), with GP demonstrating the strongest correlation. No significant correlation was found with TT (r=-0.042, p=0.606). Mean clinical severity scores indicated severe disease burden: WOMAC 64.52 ± 5.45, HAQ 16.95 ± 3.18, and VAS 6.12 ± 0.54. HKA angle showed highly significant positive correlations with all clinical severity parameters: VAS (r=0.279, p<0.001), WOMAC (r=0.579, p<0.001), and HAQ (r=0.524, p<0.001), with WOMAC demonstrating the strongest association. Conclusion: Knee varus deformity in Grade IV osteoarthritis is significantly correlated with ankle and hindfoot malalignment, as well as clinical severity. The ground-plafond angle showed the strongest correlation with knee alignment among ankle-hindfoot parameters, while WOMAC score showed the strongest association with clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that knee osteoarthritis affects the entire lower extremity as an integrated biomechanical system. Comprehensive assessment including ankle and hindfoot evaluation may improve management planning and prognostic assessment in patients with severe 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 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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→