Abstract No. : ABS3055 : Comparative evaluation of radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve and genicular nerve block in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Osteoarthritis of the knee is the most common form of chronic arthritis. There is a mixture of degradative and reparative processes in the articular cartilage and subchondral bone, associated with osteophyte formation and low grade inflammation. Methods: Patients were divided in two groups of 30 each. In group-I (n=30), patients received fluoroscope guided radiofrequency(RF) ablation of genicular nerve using RF electrode to a temperature of 60°C for 120 seconds. In Group-II (n=30), patients received fluoroscope guided genicular nerve block using 9ml drug solution comprising of 8ml of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 1ml of methylprednisolone (40mg). Pain was assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS). Results: NRS scores were clinically less in group I as compared to group II. There was clinically better patient satisfaction in group I as compared to group II. When Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index was compared in between the two groups, it was statistically comparable at all time intervals throughout the study period (p>0.05 Conclusion: Fluoroscope guided radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve and genicular nerve block with local anaesthetic and steroid are safe and effective techniques for management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of knee. However, fluoroscope guided radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve is better than fluoroscope guided genicular nerve block in terms of improvement in pain score, physical status and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".