Relationship Between Blood Plasma and Synovial Fluid Metabolite Concentrations in Patients with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between plasma and synovial fluid (SF) metabolite concentrations in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Blood plasma and SF samples were collected from patients with primary knee OA undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Metabolic profiling was performed by electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry using the AbsoluteIDQ kit. The profiling yielded 168 metabolite concentrations. Correlation analysis between SF and plasma metabolite concentrations was done on absolute concentrations as well as metabolite concentration ratios using Spearman's rank correlation (ρ) method. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients with knee OA were included, 30 men and 39 women, with an average age of 66 ± 8 years. For the absolute metabolite concentrations, the average ρ was 0.23 ± 0.13. Only 8 out of 168 metabolite concentrations had a ρ ≥ 0.45, with a p value ≤ 2.98 × 10(-4), statistically significant after correcting multiple testing with the Bonferroni method. For the metabolite ratios (n = 28,056), the average ρ was 0.29 ± 0.20. There were 4018 metabolite ratios with a ρ ≥ 0.52 and a p value ≤ 1.78 × 10(-6), significant after correcting multiple testing. Sex-separate analyses found no difference in ρ between men and women. Similarly, there was no difference in ρ between people younger and older than 65 years. CONCLUSION: Correlation between blood plasma and SF metabolite concentrations are modest. Metabolite ratios, which are considered proxies for enzymatic reaction rates and have higher correlations, should be considered when using blood plasma as a surrogate of SF in OA biomarker identification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".