MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009343637 · doi:10.2217/cer-2019-0187

Clinical therapeutic efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose or bone marrow for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020· review· en· W3009343637 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryMesenchymal stem cellClinical trialInternal medicineBone marrowVisual analogue scaleSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This meta-analysis, only including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), was conducted to assess separately and compare the therapeutic efficacy of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) at the same follow-up time. Methods: Potential relevant researches were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. The data, from clinical trials concentrating on knee OA treated with ADMSCs or BMSCs, were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with knee OA in visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm knee scale (Lysholm) and Tegner activity scale (Tegner). Results: Nine randomized controlled trials including a total of 377 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis obtained the following results. First, the improvement of VAS scores was statistically significant after BMSCs treatment at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up compared with control groups (p < 0.01). In contrast, the improvement of WOMAC scores was of no statistical significance, but showed a positive trend with the prolongation of the follow-up time (6 months: mean difference [MD] = 6.51; 95% CI: -2.38 to 15.40; p = 0.15; 12 months: MD = -6.81; 95% CI: -13.94 to 0.33; p = 0.06). Lysholm scores presented a similar pattern (12 months: MD = 1.93; 95% CI: -11.52 to 15.38; p = 0.78; 24 months: MD = 8.94; 95% CI: 1.45 to 16.43; p = 0.02). Second, VAS and WOMAC scores of patients after ADMSCs treatment were significantly improved at any follow-up time (p ≤ 0.05). The improvement of Lysholm scores was of no statistical significance compared with control groups, although treatment outcome at 12-month follow-up was better than that at 24-month follow-up, which was debatable because only data of one clinical trial were pooled in the analysis (12 months: MD = 7.50; 95% CI: -1.94 to 16.94; p = 0.12; 24 months: MD = 5.10; 95% CI: -3.02 to 13.22; p = 0.22). Finally, by comparing the statistical results of VAS and WOMAC scores, it could be concluded that the therapeutic effect of ADMSCs on knee OA was more effective than that of BMSCs. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that regeneration with BMSCs or ADMSCs had a great application potential in the treatment of patients with knee OA, and ADMSCs tended to be superior to BMSCs according to the limited clinical evidences available.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0940.042
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.105 · 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