[Arthroscopic surgery combined with platelet-rich plasma for meniscus injury:a Meta analysis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical efficacy of arthroscopic with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating meniscus injury. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2019, clinical control study on repair meniscus injury by arthroscopic with PRP between arthroscopic were searched by PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane library, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Wanfang and VIP database. Literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Visual analogue scale(VAS) of knee joint and Lysholm score at 1, 6 and 12 months after opertaion between two groups were compared, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 3, 6 and 12 months after opertaion between twogroups were also compared. RESULTS: >0.05]. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic with PRP for repair meniscus injury has short term efficacy of knee function and delay arthritis, while has similar effect in long term clinical efficacy and relieve pain.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".