A randomized controlled trial for comparing efficacy and safety between intraarticular polynucleotide and hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the use of intra-articular polynucleotide (IA PN) injection as a viscosupplement for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment has been proposed, its efficacy and safety compared to high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMWHA) injection has not yet been established. The present double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of IA PN injection compared to IA HMWHA injection. A total of 60 patients (15 men, 45 women, 64.5 ± 7.5 years) with knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-4) were randomly allocated to each group. All patients were given three IA injections of PN (n = 30) or HMWHA (n = 30) at intervals of 1 week. The primary endpoint was the change rate in weight-bearing pain (WBP) 16 weeks from the baseline. The secondary endpoint included multiple measurements: the change rate in WBP rate at 8 weeks; the change rate in pain level at rest and during walking at 8 and 16 weeks; the Korean-Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis index; the Euro-Quality of Life-5 Dimension; Clinical Global Impression, Patient Global Impression at 8 and16 weeks, and total consumption of rescue medicine. The mean change rate in the WBP at 16 weeks from the baseline was - 54.0 ± 38.1% in the IA PN group and - 42.8 (± 35.8%) in the IA HMWHA group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.296). All secondary endpoints related with pain and functional outcome also showed no significant difference between the two groups. Pain at the injection site and swelling were reported as adverse events, and the incidence was similar between the two groups. IA PN showed comparable efficacy and safety to IA HMWHA at 3 times injection with an interval of 1 week. IA PN can be useful alternative to IA HMWHA for the treatment of 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".