MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775695380 · doi:10.2147/oarrr.s50058

New developments in the treatment of osteoarthritis – focus on biologic agents

2015· review· en· W1775695380 on OpenAlexfundno aff
José Ignacio Torrero, Carlos Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Rheumatology Research and Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisDiseaseIntensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)ViscosupplementationPopulationPhysical therapyHyaluronic acidJoint diseaseAlternative medicineIntra articularPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common diseases around the world. Medical, social, and financial consequences oblige clinicians, surgeons, and researchers to focus on finding the best treatment option, to eradicate and stop this degenerative joint disease, in order to avoid surgical options which in many instances are over-indicated. Noninvasive treatments, such as anti-inflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, orthotic devices, dietary supplements, have demonstrated lack of effectiveness. The possibility to perform intra-articular injections with hyaluronic acid, corticosteroids, or the newest but criticized treatment based on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has changed the management of OA disease. The use of PRP has led to many differences in treatment since there is a lack of consensus about protocols, indications, number of doses, cost-effectiveness, and duration of the treatment. Many publications have suggested efficacy in tendon injuries, but when PRP has been indicated to treat cartilage injuries, things are more inconsistent. Some authors have reported their experience treating OA with PRP, and it seems that, if well indicated, it is an option as a supplementary therapy. Therefore, we need to understand that OA is a mechanical disease which not only produces changes in radiographs, but also affects the quality of life. Pathogenesis of OA has been well explained, providing us new knowledge and future possibilities to improve the clinical approach. From basic science to surgery, there is a great field we all need to contribute to, because the general population is aging and total joint replacements should not be the only solution for OA. So herein is an actual review of the developments for treating OA with biologics, intended to be useful for the population inside orthopedics who could be called bio-orthopedists, since OA is a molecular homeostasis disbalance between catabolism and anabolism triggered by mechanical stress.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.582
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Rheumatology Research and ReviewsSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207