MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2958180639 · doi:10.5005/ijopmr-26-1-6

Clinical and Imaging Evaluation of Efficacy of Viscosupplementation in Degenerative Osteo-arthritis Knee – A Prospective Interventional Study

2015· article· en· W2958180639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rohini Gupta, SY Kothari, Jaydeep Nandi, Diganta Borah, Brij Bhushan Thukral

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosupplementationMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACHyaluronic acidCartilageKnee JointArthritisRange of motionArthropathyProspective cohort studySurgeryNuclear medicineInternal medicineIntra articularPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study 30 patients with osteo-arthritis (OA) knee (total 55 knees) were given weekly injections of high molecular weight (HMW) hyaluronic acid (HA) for 3 weeks. The subjective parameter was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score which improved from 97.67±21.4 at baseline to 61.03±24.8 at six months follow-up (p=0.0001). Also the mean range of motion (ROM) of the involved knees was 125.73± 10.8 degrees at baseline and it increased to 132.64±5.2 degrees after six months (p=0.0001) of injection treatment. The objective parameter of disease modification was MRI based semi-quantitive Whole-organ Magnetic Resonence Imaging Score (WORMS) score. The mean of total WORMS score in medial femorotibial joint (MFTJ) and patellofemoral joint (PFJ) improved from baseline (28.382±10.446; 22.64±5.969) to final follow up (27.46±10.32; 21.76± 6.182) which was quite significant (p=0.0321; p=0.0294) and implies a reduced rate of cartilage destruction after injection HA though there is no regrowth of cartilage as such.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→