Do knee Injection Portals Affect Clinical Results of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injection in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To explore the effect that the location of needle placement has on efficacy and tolerability of bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections during treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections were administered to 111 patients via superolateral, anteromedial or anterolateral portals. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale before and 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after intervention. Knee function was assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores before and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after intervention. Results: Significant differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were observed 12 months post intervention compared with baseline (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences in outcome or pain scores were observed among groups. Conclusion: All portals demonstrated similar clinical benefits up to 12 months after intervention. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03825133)
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".