MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial of the Effect of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine Hydrochloride on Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Pilot Study

2001· article· en· W1135324563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Phuong Nguyen, Shawky E. Mohamed, Diana Gardiner, Thomas Salinas

Bibliographic record

VenueCRANIO® · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLouisiana State University
KeywordsMedicineChondroitin sulfateOsteoarthritisPlaceboTemporomandibular jointVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyGlucosamineDentistryPathologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have shown chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride have beneficial effects on symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee. Our aim was to study the effect of a daily dose of 1500 mg of glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) and 1200 mg of chondroitin sulfate (CS) taken for twelve weeks on subjects diagnosed with capsulitis, disk displacement, disk dislocation, or painful osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Forty-five subjects were enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to either an active medication group or a placebo group. Eleven subjects were lost from the study for various reasons, resulting in fourteen subjects remaining in the active medication group and twenty subjects remaining in the placebo group. Subjects taking CS-GH had improvements in their pain as measured by one index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, in TMJ tenderness, in TMJ sounds, and in the number of daily over-the-counter medications needed. Subjects taking the placebo medication had improvements in their pains as measured by the visual analog scale and by four indices of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Additional studies are required to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of CS-GH and to determine the exact mechanism by which CS-GH affects the articular cartilage of synovial joints.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations46
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCRANIO®Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207