MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081220506 · doi:10.1177/1947603520951623

Does the Source of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Have an Effect in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee? Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020· review· en· W3081220506 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

VenueCartilage · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMesenchymal stem cellMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Meta-analysis. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of bone marrow(BM)–derived mesenchymal stem cell(MSCs) and adipose-derived(AD) MSCs in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from randomized controlled trials(RCTs) available in the literature. Materials and Methods We conducted electronic database searche from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till May 2020 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy and safety of MSCs in management of osteoarthritis of knee. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for Pain, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC), Lysholm Knee Scale(Lysholm), Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score(WORMS), Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score(KOOS), and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results Nineteen studies involving 811 patients were included for analysis. None of the studies compared the source of MSCs for osteoarthritis of knee and results were obtained by pooled data analysis of both sources. At 6 months, AD-MSCs showed significantly better VAS( P<0.001, P=0.069) and WOMAC( P=0.134, P=0.441) improvement than BM-MSCs, respectively, compared to controls. At 1 year, AD-MSCs outperformed BM-MSCs compared to their control in measures like WOMAC( P=0.007, P=0.150), KOOS( P<0.001; P=0.658), and WORMS( P<0.001, P=0.041), respectively. Similarly at 24 months, AD-MSCs showed significantly better Lysholm score( P=0.037) than BM-MSCs( P=0.807) although VAS improvement was better with BM-MSCs at 24 months( P<0.001). There were no significant adverse events with either of the MSCs compared to their controls. Conclusion Our analysis establishes the efficacy, safety, and superiority of AD-MSC transplantation, compared to BM-MSC, in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from available literature. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate them together with standardized doses.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0330.020
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.278 · 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