Efficacy of intra‐articular polynucleotides in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double‐blind clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted over 16 weeks to assess the efficacy and safety profile of intra-articular polynucleotides gel injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis associated with persistent knee pain. 60 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive intra-articular polynucleotides (n = 30) or hyaluronan (n = 30); patients received five weekly intra-articular knee injections and the follow-up period was 3 months after the end of treatment. Primary endpoint was to determine polynucleotides (PN) efficacy in reducing knee pain at the end of the study, over baseline value and over standard hyaluronan viscosupplementation (HA). Pain levels were measured using a 0-10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), NSAIDs consumption, crackling during movement and articular mobility limitation. The mean global VAS pain decreased from 5.7 + or - 1.9 cm (T0) to 1.9 + or - 1.5 cm (T16) in polynucleotide group and from 4.9 + or - 2.0 cm (T0) to 2.1 + or - 1.4 cm (T16) in hyaluronan group. The reduction in pain was statistically significant for both groups. KOOS increases from baseline values were statistically significant in both groups. No significant adverse events were reported. These findings suggest that intra-articular polynucleotides can be a valid alternative to traditional hyaluronan supplementation for the treatment of 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".