Efficacy of combined ozone and platelet-rich-plasma treatment versus platelet-rich-plasma treatment alone in early stage knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic disease most often occurring in knee joints, leading to pain of varying severity and deterioration in daily living activities. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) versus PRP in combination with ozone gas injection in patients with early stage knee OA. METHODS: Retrospective data of patients who received PRP alone (n= 45) or combined treatment (PRP + ozone, n= 35) injection was analyzed. Patients were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. RESULTS: In both PRP alone and combined treatment groups, post-treatment VAS and WOMAC scores at month 1, month 3, and month 6 showed a significant reduction compared to pre-treatment scores (p< 0.001). Physical function and total WOMAC scores as well as VAS scores at post-treatment month 3 were significantly lower in the combined treatment group compared to the PRP alone group. Moreover, in the combined treatment group, VAS scores on Day 10 and hyper-inflammation at the injection site was significantly lower than the PRP alone group. CONCLUSION: In general, similar efficacy was observed between treatment with PRP alone and treatment with PRP in combination with ozone. However, patients receiving ozone treatment are less likely to experience post-injection pain and are more likely to recover faster when compared to patients receiving PRP treatment alone.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".