MRI Findings after Injection of Single and Double Centrifuged Platelet-Rich Plasma and Placebo (Normal Saline) in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial with Six-Month Follow-Up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This research aimed to compare the changes in knee MRI findings after the injection of platelet-rich plasma with those after the injection of a placebo (normal saline) in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 63 patients with grade 2 and 3 knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three injection groups: double-centrifuged PRP, single-centrifuged PRP, or placebo (normal saline). Patients were evaluated with MRI, VAS (visual analog scale), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index), knee ROM (range of motion), and functional tests before and six months after the intervention. The investigated MRI characteristics included cartilage thickness of the medial tibia and patella, WORMS score of osteophyte and subchondral cyst, as well as severity of subchondral sclerosis. Results: In the comparison between the three groups six months after the intervention, the VAS, ROM, functional tests, WOMAC scores, sclerosis severity, and the thickness of the medial tibial and patellar cartilage in the two groups, single centrifuged and double centrifuged, were significantly better than the placebo group. However, the mean overall WORMS score for osteophyte (p = 0.480) and subarticular cyst (p = 0.559) was not significant between the groups, and the PRP groups did not show a significant difference in reducing osteophyte and subarticular cysts compared to the placebo group. Conclusion: Compared to the control group, PRP was effective in improving pain, range of motion (ROM), functional performance, WOMAC scores, articular cartilage thickness, and the severity of sclerosis. No significant difference was observed between the two groups of PRP in improving these variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".