Retrospective Chart Review of Cryopreserved Amniotic Membrane for Knee Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Treatment of joint pain with an injection of the amniotic membrane has not been adequately studied. This study retrospectively reviewed Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and analgesic usage data from patients treated with the injection of cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM) in their knees to determine the impact of treatment on patients’ pain, quality of life, and analgesic usage. Methods: Chart review was conducted on 40 patients. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to initiation of the project. The membrane was utilized as per the FDA guidance of 21CFR1271. Retrospective data, including demographics, medical history, pain score, quality of life score, analgesic usage and adverse events, were collected from their medical records for each consenting patient through 6 months after CAM injection. Results: A total of 40 patients were considered in the final analysis. Mean VAS for pain level improved from 7.0 to 2.6 (p<0.001). WOMAC daily activity function score improved from a mean score of 52 to 28 (p<0.001). Opioid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) usage decreased from 97% to 25% (p<0.001). No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Mean values for VAS and WOMAC scores significantly improved at all time points and the number of patients who used analgesics decreased as compared to baseline. CAM injection into painful knee joints decreases pain, improves physical function, and decreases the use of analgesics in the absence of adverse events.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".