MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403162222 · doi:10.1002/ksa.12500

The collagen‐augmented chondrogenesis technique demonstrates superior cartilage repair compared to microfracture for cartilage defects of the knee joint, regardless of age

2024· article· en· W4403162222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Man Soo Kim, Keun Young Choi, Ryu Kyoung Cho, Hyuk Jin Jang, Dong Ho Kwak, Sung Cheol Yang, Seung Taek Oh, Yong In

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChondrogenesisCartilageOsteoarthritisWOMACVisual analogue scaleMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryOrthopedic surgeryPathologyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether age affects clinical outcomes and cartilage repair quality in patients who underwent collagen-augmented chondrogenesis. METHODS: The study included patients who underwent either the collagen-augmented chondrogenesis technique or microfracture for cartilage defects of the knee joint of International Cartilage Repair Society grade 3 or 4. Patients were categorised according to an age threshold of 50 years and the treatment method, whether collagen-augmented chondrogenesis technique or microfracture. Group 1 comprised 31 patients aged 50 years or older who received the collagen-augmented chondrogenesis technique, Group 2 consisted of 32 patients under the age of 50 years who received the collagen-augmented chondrogenesis technique and Group 3 included 243 patients aged 50 years or older who received microfracture. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the walking visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index scale score (WOMAC) two years after surgery. For patients with magnetic resonance imaging results 1 year postoperatively (Group 1: 30 patients; Group 2: 31 patients; and Group 3: 31 patients), Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) assessment was used to evaluate repaired cartilage lesions. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the VAS and WOMAC scores between the three groups 2 years after surgery (all n.s.). The MOCART score in patients who underwent MRI at 1 year postoperatively showed significant differences in the degree of defect repair, integration with the border zone, surface of the repaired tissue, adhesion and total score among the three groups (all p < 0.05). Post hoc analysis revealed no difference in the total MOCART scores between Groups 1 and 2. However, Groups 1 and 2 had significantly higher MOCART scores than Group 3 1 year after surgery (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The collagen-augmented chondrogenesis technique group showed improved quality of cartilage repair compared to the microfracture group, regardless of patient age. Compared with simple microfracture treatment, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between the patient groups, related to age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→