[Clinical correlation study between bone metabolism level and knee osteoarthritis pain].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variability of bone metabolism levels among different populations and its association with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain. METHODS: A total of 50 people (control group) who participated in physical examination from January 2023 to June 2023 were selected, including 26 males and 24 females, wtih a mean aged of (52.14±9.04) years old ranging 41 to 65 years old. The other 50 patients with knee osteoarthritis(case group) who attended the outpatient clinic of the Orthopedics and Traumatology Department in the same time period, including 19 males and 31 females, with a mean age of (53.60±7.76) years old ranging 40 to 65 years. The two groups of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) and bone metabolism markers, such as 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol[25(OH)D], β-isomerized typeⅠcollagen C-telopeptide breakdown products (β-CTX), total typeⅠprocollagen N-terminal propeptide (t-PINP), osteocalcin (OC), parathormone (PTH) levels were compared. Pearson correlation analysis was used to compare the correlation between two groups of bone metabolism related markers and WOMAC. RESULTS: <0.01). CONCLUSION: Bone metabolism levels in the serum of patients with knee osteoarthritis are different from those of healthy people, and the difference between OC and t-PINP is the most obvious, and the concentration of t-PINP levels is positively correlated with pain symptoms in patients with KOA. However, the specific mechanism of correlation between the bone metabolism levels of patients with KOA and their pain symptoms needs to be further elucidated by basic experimental research as well as by enlarging the samples.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".