MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558874212 · doi:10.1097/bco.0000000000000457

Tibiofemoral chondromalacia treated with platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid

2016· article· en· W2558874212 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Orthopaedic Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaHyaluronic acidCartilageWOMACOsteoarthritisArthroscopyChondromalaciaSurgeryPlateletPathologyInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The objective of the present study was to determine if platelet rich plasma (PRP) can increase tibiofemoral cartilage regeneration and improve knee function. Methods: Fourty consecutive and strictly selected patients affected by grade II or III chondromalacia underwent 1 yr of treatment (nine injections) with autologous PRP in a liquid form with 2.0 to 2.5-fold platelet concentration (20 cases) or with hyaluronic acid (HA) (20 patients). Outcome measures included the Lysholm, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, and Short Form (SF)-36 scores. MRI arthroscopic and histologic assessment were used to evaluate cartilage thickness and degree of degeneration before and after treatment (1 yr after the primary arthroscopy). Results: The study demonstrated significant improvement in Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, WOMAC, and SF-36 scores in both groups. Cartilage assessment revealed no significant macroscopic or microscopic structural regeneration as well as no cartilage height increase in either group. Higher content of chondrocytes and proteoglycans in cartilage was proven in both groups after treatment without a statistically significant difference between the groups. There were no adverse events observed. Conclusions: PRP and HA significantly reduced pain and improved quality of life in patients with a low degree of cartilage degeneration. MRI and arthroscopic assessment did not confirm any significant cartilage structural improvement. The content of chondrocytes and proteoglycans in cartilage was higher in the PRP group than in the HA group after the treatment but did not reach statistical significance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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