Quality of life changes in patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis treated with bone marrow aspirate concentrate, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid injections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the effects of different treatments on quality of life in knee osteoarthritis patients. It focused on three therapies: bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and hyaluronic acid (HA). METHODOLOGY: The trial was conducted at a single center with 175 patients over a 12-month period with the knee OA, KL grade II-IV. Outcomes were measured using the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and SF-36 scales, which assess physical and emotional well-being. Linear mixed models (LMMs) were used to analyze which treatment had the most positive impact on quality of life. RESULTS: ≤ 0,001). PRP outperformed HA in some aspects, but BMAC consistently led to greater gains. The most notable enhancements were seen in areas like role limitations due to physical health and overall physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggested that BMAC treatment may contribute to improved quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis, particularly in terms of physical function. The correlation between WOMAC and SF-36 scores supports these findings, indicating a potential role for BMAC in enhancing mobility. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03825133 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it