MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614933788 · doi:10.1016/j.reth.2017.04.002

Clinical results following intra-articular injection of adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction cells in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

2017· article· en· W2614933788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naomasa Yokota, Masayuki Yamakawa, Tomohiko Shirata, Tetsuya Kimura, Hideto Kaneshima

Bibliographic record

VenueRegenerative Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStromal vascular fractionWOMACOsteoarthritisAdipose tissueLiposuctionSurgeryFat padCannulaAdverse effectInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results following intra-articular knee injection of Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF cell therapy). METHODS: This study involved 13 consecutive patients who had received SVF cell therapy at our clinic before November 2015 and completed the 6-month post-treatment follow-up period. For each treatment, approximately 200 mL or more of subcutaneous adipose tissue was harvested using tumescent liposuction technique and manual aspiration of tissue from the lower abdomen using a suction cannula under local anesthesia in the operating room. The adipose tissue harvested was processed using the Celution Centrifuge IV in the cell processing room of our clinic. These cells were injected into the articular cavity of both knees directly. Outcome was assessed on the basis of patient questionnaires using VAS for pain, the Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: < 0.01). Ultimately, the scores were improved by an average of 35% over baseline for JKOM, 32% improvement in WOMAC, and 40% for pain (VAS). CONCLUSIONS: Our approach is unique in that it occurred within the context of the recently enacted Japanese Regenerative Medicine Safety Act which is the first in the world.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations90
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegenerative TherapySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207