ArticleCureus2024
A Gender-Bias-Mitigated, Data-Driven Precision Medicine System to Assist in the Selection of Biological Treatments of Grade 3 and 4 Knee Osteoarthritis: Development and Preliminary Validation of precisionKNEE.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex bias consideration in healthcare machine-learning research: a systematic review in rheumatoid arthritis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting Long-Term Benefits of Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: Three-Year Follow-Up on Pain Relief and Mobility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To identify key variables predictive of patient responses to microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) treatment in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and evaluate its potential to delay or mitigate the need for total knee replacement (TKR). Methods We utilised a dataset comprising 329 patients treated with MFAT for KOA, incorporating variables such as gender, age, BMI, arthritic aetiology, radiological grade, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) pre- and post-treatment. We employed random forest regressors for model training and testing, with gender bias mitigation and outlier detection to enhance prediction accuracy. Model performance was assessed through root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE), with further validation in a TKR-suitable patient subset. Results The model achieved a test RMSE of 6.72 and an MAE of 5.38, reflecting moderate predictive accuracy across the patient cohort. Stratification by gender revealed no statistically significant differences between actual and predicted OKS improvements (p-values: males = 0.93, females = 0.92). For the subset of patients suitable for TKR, the model presented an increased RMSE of 9.77 and MAE of 7.81, indicating reduced accuracy in this group. The decision tree analysis identified pre-operative OKS, radiological grade, and gender as significant predictors of post-treatment outcomes, with pre-operative OKS being the most critical determinant. Patients with lower pre-operative OKS showed varying responses based on radiological severity and gender, suggesting a nuanced interaction between these factors in determining treatment efficacy. Conclusion This study highlights the potential of MFAT as a non-surgical alternative for KOA treatment, emphasising the importance of personalised patient assessments. While promising, the predictive model warrants further refinement and validation with a larger, more diverse dataset to improve its utility in clinical decision-making for KOA management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.