Mid-Term Effectiveness of Ozone (O2-O3) Compared to Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Parallel Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: A randomized parallel controlled trial was designed to compare efficacy of ozone (O2-O3) against platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as intra-articular infiltrations in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Methods: Tertiary-level outpatient rehabilitation service. Subjects: Fifty-four patients with knee OA grades 2a - 4a according to Kellgren-Lawrence scale were included after obtaining an informed consent. The target sample size was 27 patients per group. Intervention: Patients received four ozone (intervention group) or three platelet-rich plasma (control group) intra-articular infiltrations at a one-week interval. Outcome measures: Patients were clinically and functionally evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS pain) and by Western Ontario and Mac Master index for osteoarthritis (WOMAC) at baseline and at two months follow-up. Pain, stiffness, function, and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated outcome variables. Results: Overall, 27 patients were randomly allocated to the intervention group (ozone) and 27 to the control group (PRP). Improvement in pain, function, and QoL were observed in both groups without a statistical difference (P > 0.05). Stiffness improvement was significant between similar and different treatment groups (P < 0.05). No side-effects were observed in either group. Conclusions: Ozone (O2-O3) is as effective as PRP in the management of knee OA. Both interventions improved pain, function, and QoL with no statistical difference between them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".