Efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment for refractory chronic pain of medial knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To elucidate the efficacy and safety of MRgFUS in the treatment for refractory pain derived from medial knee OA.Methods Twenty patients with medial knee OA eligible for total knee arthroplasty were included in this prospective, non-controlled study (UMIN000010193). MRgFUS treatment was provided at the site of most severe tenderness around the medial femorotibial joint of each patient under real-time monitoring of temperature. The goal temperature of the targeted bone surface was 55 °C. Numerical rating scale (NRS) worst pain scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores, EuroQol 5 dimensions index (EQ-5D) scores and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were evaluated before treatment (baseline) and at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Complications and adverse events were also assessed clinically and radiographically.Results Treatment response (a 50% or greater decrease in NRS score) was seen in 14 patients (14/19, 73.7%) at 12 months post-treatment. Mean NRS score rapidly decreased at 1 month after treatment and continued to decline through the following 12 months. At final follow-up, mean NRS score was 3.2 ± 1.9, significantly lower than at baseline (p = 0.0013). Mean WOMAC and EQ-5D scores also improved significantly from 1 month after treatment. Fifteen patients showed significant sustained increases in PPTs at the sites of most severe tenderness. No serious adverse events were observed during and after treatment.Conclusions MRgFUS treatments were effective not only for managing refractory pain, but also for improving physical functions without adverse events in elderly patients with medial knee OA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".