CORRELATING THE OUTCOME OF KNEE INTRAARTICULAR VISCO-SUPPLEMENTATION WITH RADIOLOGICAL CHANGES OF OSTEOARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to identify the radiological changes of the knee that correlated with an unfavorable outcome when treated with an intra-articular knee viscoelastic supplementation. A prospective cohort of 60 patients receiving a standard course of intra-articular knee viscoelastic supplementation with a commercial uncrosslinked hyaluronic acid derivative of an intermediate molecular weight were studied. Follow-up was for 12 weeks post treatment with clinical improvement measured using the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Radiographs of the relevant knee were viewed and graded for the severity of joint space, osteophyte, tibial spine, sclerosis, cyst formation, alignment and general severity by an observer blinded to the outcome of the treatment. There were no appreciable differences noted in the age, sex, length of follow up, prior treatment, the severity of symptoms before treatment and number of intra-articular injections given per course in each radiographic category identified. There was a significant amount of improvement in patients with a minor loss of medial and lateral joint space in all outcome measures. Minimal changes in tibial spine and global appearance also indicated a positive outcome in stiffness, pain and overall improvement. Thus, patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritic changes in joint space on radiographic examination would not significantly benefit from intra-articular knee viscoelastic supplementation. In addition, we feel that changes in the tibial spine and global appearance are not reviewed consistently enough to be included as part of our recommendation. As such, we conclude that only patients with a minimal to mild loss in joint space on radiological examination should form part of the target group who are likely to benefit from intra-articular knee viscoelastic supplementation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".