OP013 Effectiveness of conventional and cooled RF in treating chronic knee pain: initial findings from the cogenius trial: interim report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Please confirm that an ethics committee approval has been applied for or granted: Yes: I’m uploading the Ethics Committee Approval as a PDF file with this abstract submission Background and Aims The COGENIUS trial aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of conventional and cooled RF treatments in patients with therapy-resistant chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) and persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) after a total knee prosthesis. Methods The COGENIUS trial is a multicenter double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 2-year follow-up. After an initial run-in period, 200 patients per subgroup will be randomized to receive either conventional RF, cooled RF, or a sham procedure in a 2:2:1 ratio (Fig. 1,2). The analysis includes a comparison of the effectiveness of each RF treatment with the sham procedure and between conventional and cooled RF. The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score at 6 months. Knee pain, functionality, quality of life, emotional health, medication use and cost constitute secondary endpoints. Results To date, 822 patients have been screened, of which were 220 eligible for the trial and 164 randomized across 14 centers. Of these, 63 participants belong to the OA subgroup and 101 to the PPSP subgroup. The enrollment began on 7 July 2022, with the trial projected to conclude in March 2028. Most exclusions occurred due to bilateral knee pain (128/822), refusal to participate (85/822), and chronic widespread pain (49/822). Until present 12 of the 220 patients experienced adequate improvement in pain after the run-in period. Conclusions This ongoing study aims to delineate the relative effectiveness of cooled and conventional RF treatments compared to a sham procedure in patients with chronic knee pain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".