Effectiveness of gonarthrosis treatment via intra-articular injections of linear vs. cross-linked hyaluronic acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the outcomes of single-dose cross-linked hyaluronic acid and the linear regimen of three doses of HA knee injections among patients with gonarthrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study was conducted with 60 patients (47 females, 13 males; mean age: 57.9±4.29 years; range, 50 to 65 years) with Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2 or 3 gonarthrosis between February 2020 and February 2022. Patients were either subjected to intra-articular cross-linked hyaluronic acid (n=30) or linear hyaluronic acid (n=30) injection treatments. Comprehensive assessments of the patients were conducted prior to the injections, as well as at three and six months after injection. The two injection groups were compared regarding the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Oxford Knee Score. RESULTS: Both injections showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline in both WOMAC and Oxford Knee Score at three and six months (p<0.001). There was no notable distinction in the alteration of WOMAC knee scores between the two injection types. However, a notable discrepancy was observed in the elevation of Oxford Knee Score among patients who received cross-linked knee injections compared to those who underwent linear hyaluronic acid knee injections, signifying a significant increase in the former group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The advantage of a single-dose administration of cross-linked HA knee injections, as opposed to the three-dose regimen required for linear hyaluronic acid, translates into reduced time and cost for the injection process. Moreover, this approach minimizes injection-associated discomfort for patients due to the singular dose administration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".