Intra-Articular Injections of a Whole Blood Clot Secretome, Autologous Conditioned Serum, Have Superior Clinical and Biochemical Efficacy Over Platelet-Rich Plasma and Induce Rejuvenation-Associated Changes of Joint Metabolism: A Prospective, Controlled Open-Label Clinical Study in Chronic Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a frequent, age-associated disease affecting >10% of world's population over 60 years of age. This study intended to compare intra-articular whole blood clot secretome (autologous conditioned serum [ACS], recently re-named blood clot secretome [BCS]) to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in knee osteoarthritis (OA). A clinical, nonrandomized open-label comparison of ACS versus PRP in knee OA with subclinical or moderate synovitis symptomology was performed. One hundred and twenty-three patients with knee OA, Kellgren and Lawrence grade II–III, were each treated with six i.a. injections of ACS or PRP. The clinical efficacy was measured by visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score. The biochemical effects measured include synovial fluid (SF) viscosity, cytokines interleukin (IL)-1Ra and IL-1b, radical footprint NO 3 , and conjugated dienes (CDs). At the 3-month follow-up, clinical efficacy of ACS was significant in all groups, versus PRP. PRP had significant versus baseline efficacy in subclinical, but not in moderate, synovitis cases. ACS was more effective than PRP regarding all analytical parameters. It induced endogenous IL-1Ra expression, downregulated IL-1b, and improved SF viscosity. ACS reduced—significantly stronger than PRP—the concentration of CDs—interpreted as reactive oxygen species footprints—and NO 3 —interpreted as nitric oxide footprint—in SF. ACS displayed significant efficacy in all groups, which was clinically and biochemically superior to PRP. ACS appears to improve i.a. homeostasis. Strength of this open clinical study is the combination of clinical and biochemical data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".