Comparison of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with physical therapy alone co existing meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In patients with a meniscal tear and mild-to moderate osteoarthritis, we analyzed whether arthroscopic partial meniscectomy improve physical and functional outcomes more than physical therapy does. Methods: 52 patients had a meniscal tear as well as osteoarthritis confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging or radiography. Symptoms had persisted for more than 3 months despite conservative measures. Patients were allocated to Group A subjected to partial meniscectomy and postoperative physical therapy (n=26) or to Group B with physical therapy alone (n=26). The primary outcome measure was change on the physical-function scale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) during the 6 months after randomization. A 12-month assessment was added to determine the stability of the result. Secondary outcomes were the pain score on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Results: At 6 months, the 2 groups did not differ in mean improvement in the WOMAC physical-function score, in decreases on the KOOS pain score. The results were similar at 12 months. Conclusions: In patients with a meniscal tear and mild-tomoderate osteoarthritis, both groups showed similar outcomes between arthroscopic meniscectomy and physical 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".