ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Machine learning predicts clinical response to platelet-rich plasma therapy in knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Guided Precision Orthobiologics in Musculoskeletal Conditions.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and big data for precision regenerative medicine in knee osteoarthritis: endotyping, responder prediction, and clinical translation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the study is to predict clinical responses to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) before treatment and to identify the crucial efficacy predictors. Methods: We reviewed the multidimensional clinical data of 102 KOA patients who underwent PRP therapy with a retrospective approach, including anthropometrics and blood indices. We defined the response to treatment as a reduction in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of ≥2 at the 6-month follow-up. After comprehensive data preprocessing, including imputation, Yeo-Johnson transformation, standardization, and balancing via SMOTETomek, 33 clinical features were retained. We then created and verified multiple machine learning models using 10-fold cross-validation (CV) on a 70% training cohort. The most effective model was subsequently validated on the 30% test cohort, and feature contributions were interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis. Results: The Gradient Boosting Classifier showed the best overall performance among all tested models. The final model achieved a prediction accuracy of 90.3%, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.862, and a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.611 on the test set, indicating high predictive consistency. The SHAP interpretability analysis revealed three biomarkers-osmotic pressure, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], and uric acid-as the clinical factors most strongly associated with treatment response. Conclusion: Clinical character-based machine learning models are effective in predicting PRP therapy outcomes prior to treatment. Such results provide a strong basis for introducing individualized therapeutic modalities in the management of osteoarthritis.
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.