Evidence-based indications of platelet-rich plasma therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived product that contains platelet concentrations at least 2/3 times above the normal level and includes platelet-related growth factors. The concept of PRP began in the 1970s in the field of hematology to treat patients with thrombocytopenia. In the 1980s and 1990s, PRP began to be used in surgical procedures such as maxillofacial surgery and plastic surgery. Since then, PRP had been used in orthopedic procedures, cardiac surgery, sports injuries, plastic surgery, gynecology, urology, and more recently in medical esthetics.Areas covered: This review analyzes the mechanisms of action, current indications, clinical evidence, safety and future directions of PRP in the management of various medical conditions. The literature search methodology included using medical subject headings terms to search in PubMed. Articles used were screened and critically appraised by the coauthors of this review.Expert Opinion: Platelet-rich plasma is a therapeutic option used to treat many medical conditions. PRP could be used alone or in combination with other procedures. The effectiveness and safety of PRP has been demonstrated in many medical scenarios, however there is limited availability of large randomized clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".