MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211226428 · doi:10.3233/bmr-210043

The efficacy of transcatheter arterial embolization for knee pain on patients with knee osteoarthritis: A case series

2021· article· en· W3211226428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kun Yung Kim, Gi-Wook Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisSurgeryConservative treatmentKnee painKnee JointEmbolizationArterial Embolization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is accompanied by inflammation and angiogenesis. Modifying angiogenesis through transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) can be a potential treatment for knee OA. OBJECTIVE: We subjected five OA knees in three patients to TAE and report the results of our post-treatment observations. CASE DESCRIPTION: Three patients that had experienced knee pain for a minimum of one year prior to the study, and whose pain had persisted despite conservative treatment, were included in this study. Patients more often chose conservative treatment over surgical treatment. Pain and functional scales were evaluated before, immediately, and 1 month after TAE using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). TAE was performed by an experienced interventional radiologist. The average values of NRS evaluated before and after 5 TAEs were 5.2 before TAE, 3 immediately after TAE, and 3.6 after 1 month of TAE, and the average values of WOMAC were 52, 38.4, and 36.4, respectively. There were no major adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The examined cases support the conclusion that TAE is an effective treatment for patients with knee OA. Substantial pain relief and WOMAC improvement were observed both immediately and one month after TAE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal RehabilitationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207