A Second Course of Hylan G-F 20 for the Treatment of Osteoarthritic Knee Pain – <i>12-Month Patient Follow-up</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective open-label study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a second course of hylan G-F 20 for the treatment of osteoarthritic knee pain over a 12-month period in patients who previously experienced a beneficial initial course of therapy. Men or women aged > or = 40 years with knee osteoarthritis received 3 weekly injections of hylan G-F 20. Consecutive patients requesting a second course of therapy were enrolled from October 2000 to January 2001. The mean time between the first and second courses of hylan G-F 20 was 19.6 months. All efficacy parameters significantly improved (P<.001) from baseline at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52. Improvements from baseline to weeks 26 and 52 for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) index question A1, WOMAC domain C, and total WOMAC were 1.39+/-0.11 and 1.1+/-0.12, 18.50+/-1.43 and 13.69+/-1.54, and 26.77+/-1.97 and 19.8+/-2.13, respectively. Significant improvements from baseline were maintained for patient and physician VAS to week 26 (patient: 48.66+/-2.52; investigator: 51.51+/-2.34) and week 52 (patient: 46.10+/-2.73; investigator: 47.23+/-2.52). A second course of hylan G-F 20 therapy was generally well-tolerated; the types of local events observed in this study were not qualitatively different from those in the current product information and published literature. For continued relief of osteoarthritic knee pain, this study supports repeat use of hylan G-F 20 in patients who had a previous successful course of therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".