Intra-articular injection of gold micro-particles for painful knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Gold microparticles injected intra-articular in knee osteoarthritic joints (OA) may provide pain relief. The present open, exploratory study sought to identify the efficacy and factors associated with the outcomes. Methods: This study included thirty patients with knee OA who received intraarticular injections with 20 mg gold microparticles (72.000 particles, 20–40 µm in diameter) using the patient’s synovial fluid as the carrier, and 136 patients with knee OA who received 20 mg gold microparticles using hyaluronic acid as the carrier. In the analysis, we included the Global Rating of Change Scale, PainDetectQuestionnaire (PDQ), the use of a carrier, Body Mass Index (BMI), and Kellgren Lawrence score at the inclusion, Western Ontario, and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) sub-scores for pain, stiffness, and function at inclusion and two years. Results: On the Global Rating Change Scale, 72.9% of patients reported a positive effect, 23.5% no effect, and 2.4% worse. PDQ and the three WOMAC subscores all improved at two years of follow-up. The use of carrier did not influence the effect at two years of follow-ups corrected for the other selected co-variables (P = 0.36). PainDetect ≥ 13 (P = 0.0027), BMI (P = 0.008) and Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 (P = 0.049) at inclusion reduced the effect with a minor odds ratio compared to the baseline effect of treatment (P = 0.03). WOMAC subscores at inclusion did not influence the effect (P > 0.5). Conclusions: A single intra-articular injection of gold microparticles was associated with pain reduction and improved function in patients with knee OA. Neuropathic pain, obesity, and severe osteoarthritis, to a minor degree, reduced the effect of intra-articular gold microparticles for knee OA. Trial registration The study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee of the North Denmark Region by 27/07/2016 (N-20160045). The regional data protection agency approved the project by 06/07/2016 (2008-58-0028, ID 2016-116) and registered in ClinicalTrial.Gov by 04/01/2018 (NCT03389906).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".