Artificial intelligence in osteoarthritis: repair by knee joint distraction shows association of pain, radiographic and immunological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Knee joint distraction (KJD) has been associated with clinical and structural improvement and SF marker changes. The current objective was to analyse radiographic changes after KJD using an automatic artificial intelligence-based measurement method and relate these to clinical outcome and SF markers. METHODS: Twenty knee osteoarthritis patients were treated with KJD in regular care. Radiographs and WOMAC were collected before and ∼1 year post-treatment. SF was aspirated before, during and after treatment; biomarker levels were assessed by immunoassay. Radiographs were analysed to obtain compartmental minimum and standardized joint space width (JSW), Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grades, compartmental joint space narrowing (JSN) scores, and osteophytosis and sclerosis scores. Results were analysed for the most affected compartment (MAC) and least affected compartment. Radiographic changes were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test for categorical and paired t-test for continuous variables. Linear regression was used to calculate associations between changes in JSW, WOMAC pain and SF markers. RESULTS: Sixteen patients could be evaluated. JSW, KL and JSN improved in around half of the patients, significant only for MAC JSW (P < 0.05). MAC JSW change was positively associated with WOMAC pain change (P < 0.04). Greater monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1) and lower TGFβ-1 increases were significantly associated with changes in MAC JSW (P < 0.05). MCP-1 changes were positively associated with WOMAC pain changes (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Automatic radiographic measurements show improved joint structure in most patients after KJD in regular care. MAC JSW increased significantly and was associated with SF biomarker level changes and even with improvements in pain as experienced by these patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".