MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331218896 · doi:10.1097/jsa.0000000000000001

The Use of Platelet-rich Plasma in Orthopedic Injuries

2013· review· en· W2331218896 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Willits, Nicole Kaniki, Dianne Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaPlateletOrthopedic surgeryAutologous bloodSurgeryImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous concentration of blood-derived human platelets in a small volume of plasma. The types of PRP vary according to the commercial preparation system used, the platelet concentration, or the anticoagulant or activator used. Autologous conditioned plasma is an autologous concentration of human platelets in plasma 2 to 4 times greater than that which is found in blood at baseline. Platelets are important to the normal healing response of tissue by the local secretion of growth factors and recruitment of reparative cells in an area of injury. PRP is theorized to create an optimal healing environment in a region of tissue injury. This is a literature review of currently published studies using PRP in orthopedic injuries. We performed a literature search in PubMed and Medline in April 2013. We concluded that given the number of variations of PRP available and the lack of high-level published studies, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support its clinical use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy ReviewSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207