Viscosupplementation in Knee Osteoarthritis: Evidence Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The body of evidence surrounding the use of viscosupplementation in knee osteoarthritis is extensive and fraught with heterogeneous trials with conflicting conclusions. Attempts to aggregate the evidence through systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines have also resulted in unclear, discordant recommendations. Closer examination reveals that the evidence around viscosupplementation favors clinically important reductions in pain among higher-molecular-weight and cross-linked formulations and is a safe option in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Further large trials assessing the use of viscosupplementation across various formulations in knee osteoarthritis may confirm subgroup findings from meta-analyses; however, immediate focus on improved knowledge translation is required to ensure evidence-based approaches to 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 | 0.064 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".