MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413894129 · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-09030-2

Study protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled confirmatory clinical investigation to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a multidisciplinary digital therapeutics in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome

2025· article· en· W4413894129 on OpenAlexaff
Tae Hyun Park, Chan Yoon, Jae Hyeon Park, Sanghee Lee, Chi-Hyun Choi, Chong Bum Chang, Jin Goo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Food and Drug Safety
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPatellofemoral pain syndromeDepression (economics)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaMultidisciplinary approachAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain is a prevalent knee condition affecting up to 40% of individuals, especially females aged teens to 50 s. Standard treatments, including exercise therapy, often yield insufficient long-term results, partly due to low compliance and psychological factors like depression and catastrophizing of pain. A digital therapeutics "MORA Cure PFP," which combines structured progressive exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy via an app, offers a solution to overcome the limitations of conventional treatment for patellofemoral pain patients. METHODS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of MORA Cure PFP, a two-arm controlled trial will enroll 216 patients diagnosed with patellofemoral pain randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to treatment and control groups. The treatment group will use the app, while the control group will perform self-guided exercises using educational materials. This trial aims to determine if the treatment group shows greater reduction in usual pain intensity scores at 8 weeks compared to the control group. Additional assessments include worst pain, knee function, depression, and pain catastrophizing levels. DISCUSSION: Key design elements of the clinical trial, such as control group selection, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of patients, and primary endpoint, were designed with consideration for not only medical perspectives but also regulatory aspects of software as a medical device, including device approval and health technology assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov., NCT06260865, registered 15th February 2024.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207