The Effects of Prolotherapy With Hypertonic Dextrose Versus Prolozone (Intraarticular Ozone) in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common disabling disease. Limited studies have demonstrated that prolotherapy with dextrose or with prolozone can be helpful in the treatment of patients with KOA. OBJECTIVES: In the current study, we compared the results between these two treatment methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the current randomized clinical trial, 80 patients with mild to moderate KOA were randomly assigned equally into two groups (ozone group and dextrose group). In each group, injections were repeated three times with 10-day intervals. Before the treatment and 3 months after the injections, the pain intensity was measured by using a visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster university arthritis index scores. Finally, the results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the two groups, the pain intensity and WOMAC scores significantly decreased and increased, respectively (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prolotherapy with dextrose and with prolozone result in the same pain relief or functional improvement in patients with mild to moderate KOA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".