Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy in Osteoarthritis Patients: A Two-Year Prospective Evaluation of Knee Joint Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the functional effects of stem cell therapy on the knees of osteoarthritis patients (OP) with at 1, 2 months, and 2-year follow-up intervals. Initially, 25 patients were enrolled, but data from only 15 patients were available at the end of the two-year follow-up (approximately 40% loss to follow-up). Significant improvements in the range of motion (ROM) were observed during the early post-treatment period (1st and 2nd months). However, a slight decline in ROM was noted at the 2-year mark, which was not statistically significant in the dominant knee (p=0.06). In contrast, the non-dominant knee showed a statistically significant deterioration over the same period (p=0.04). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and fatigue demonstrated marked improvement in the early period post-treatment, but by the end of two years, pain had partially increased and fatigue had significantly worsened. Functional tests such as the 30-second sit-to-stand and walking distance tests showed early improvements post-treatment; however, a declining trend was observed at the two-year follow-up. Berg balance scale improved following therapy and this improvement was largely maintained at the end of two years. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores indicated significant early improvements, and although they worsened by the end of two years, they remained significantly better than baseline. Subjective assessments revealed that patients who adhered to regular exercise achieved better clinical outcomes, while those who did not exercise reported increased pain and functional decline. Patients who did not respond to treatment underwent either knee arthroplasty or repeat stem cell therapy. Overall, stem cell therapy provided significant early clinical and functional improvements in osteoarthritic knees; however, a reduction in efficacy was observed in the long term, with deterioration noted in some parameters.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".