Effect of Intra-Articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma on the Serum Levels of Osteoarthritic Biomarkers in Patients with Unilateral Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the effect of three doses of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into the osteoarthritic (OA) knee joint on the functional status and on the changes in the levels of specific OA biomarkers in blood serum. METHODS: Forty patients with unilateral primary knee osteoarthritis were enrolled in this single center, prospective clinical trial. For each patient, three intra-articular PRP injections were administered one week apart. Clinical and laboratory assessment was performed before the first PRP injection (baseline), and 3 months after the third PRP application (3-month follow up). Pain in the affected knee joint was assessed with the Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS). Change in clinical status was evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Questionnaire (WOMAC). Concentrations of 19 biomarkers (EGF, Eotaxin, FGF-2, GRO, IL-10, IL-1RA, IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, PDGF-AB/BB, RANTES, MMP-3, MMP-13, Collagen type 2, BMP-2, TIMP-1, TIMP-2, TGF beta 1, and COMP) in the serum of studied patients were quantified. RESULTS: At 3-month follow up, there was a significant decrease in the VAS score and significant improvement in the WOMAC score. There was a significant decrease in the levels of Eotaxin, MCP-1, MMP-1, IL-10, EGF, PDGF-AB/BB, TGF- β1 compared to baseline levels. A significant increase in markers BMP-2, COMP, Collagen type 2 and GRO was found at the same time point. There was no significant change in the concentrations of other biomarkers (FGF-2, IL-1RA, IL-8, IL-10, MMP-3, RANTES, TIMP-1, TIMP-3). CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase in specific pro-anabolic and anti-inflammatory biomarkers with a concomitant decrease in pro-inflammatory biomarkers at 3 months after three intra-articular applications of PRP. Significant improvement in VAS and WOMAC scores was observed. Treatment with PRP may be an effective therapeutic option with anti-inflammatory and regenerative potential in patients with primary 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".