Mediterranean Diet and Sports Injury Prevention: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
502 patients underwent LP-PRP injection, and 481 patients underwent HA injection.Interventions: An experimental group that received intra-articular LP-PRP injection and a control group that received intra-articular HA injection.Main Outcome Measures: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (WOMAC total, pain, stiffness, and physical function scores); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, EQ-VAS scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and adverse events were used as outcome measurements to evaluating the efficacy of LP-PRP and HA treatment.Results: After screening 377 potential articles, 12 RCTs were enrolled in this systemic review and meta-analysis.The WOMAC total scores and WOMAC physical function scores of the LP-PRP group were better than those of the HA group at 6 and 12 months.VAS scores of the LP-PRP group were better than those of the HA group at 3, 6, and 12 months.The LP-PRP group have a better outcome of IKDC scores than the HA group at 6 months.There was no significant difference in adverse events between the LP-PRP and HA groups.Conclusions: Intra-articular injections of LP-PRP showed better overall outcomes, such as WOMAC total scores, WOMAC physical function scores, and IKDC scores, compared to HA for knee osteoarthritis adult patients at short-term and long-term follow-up periods.Also, LP-PRP showed better short-term and long-term pain relief compared to HA. Intra-articular LP-PRP improves pain relief and overall outcomes in knee osteoarthritis patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".