A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomised, clinical study on the effectiveness of collagen peptide on osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies show that enzymatically hydrolysed collagen, the collagen peptide, is absorbed and distributed to joint tissues and has analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial with collagen peptides isolated from pork skin (PCP) and bovine bone (BCP) sources was carried out to study the effectiveness of orally supplemented collagen peptide to control the progression of osteoarthritis in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. Improvement in treatment was assessed with reduction in Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC), visual analogue scale (VAS) and quality of life (QOL) scores from baseline to 13 weeks (Visit 7). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: There was significant reduction from baseline to Visit 7 in the primary end points of WOMAC and VAS scores and in the secondary end point of QOL score in subjects with PCP and BCP groups, while in subjects with placebo group the end point indices remained unaltered. Furthermore, all the score levels of WOMAC, VAS and QOL decreased significantly (P < 0.01) in the study group compared to placebo group in Visit 7. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that collagen peptides are potential therapeutic agents as nutritional supplements for the management of osteoarthritis and maintenance of joint health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".