Palm vitamin E and glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of oral palm vitamin E in reducing symptoms of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee compared to oral glucosamine sulphate. METHODS: This open study was carried out at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia between March 2006 and November 2007. Seventy-nine patients were recruited to receive either 1.5 g oral glucosamine sulphate or 400 mg oral palm vitamin E for 6 months. Symptoms were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients completed the trial (vitamin E n=33, glucosamine sulfate n=31). After 6 months of treatment, both groups showed a significant improvement in WOMAC scale and significant reduction in the VAS score during standing and walking. There was no significant difference in WOMAC scale and VAS score between the 2 groups. Except for mild allergic reaction and abdominal discomfort in one patient, there were no other serious adverse effects reported. Serum malondialdehyde was significantly higher in the glucosamine group compared to palm vitamin E treated group at the end of the study. Serum of vitamin E was significantly higher in the palm vitamin E group compared to glucosamine. CONCLUSION: The finding of this study suggests that oral palm vitamin E in a dose of 400 mg taken daily has a potential role in reducing symptoms of patients with OA of the knee. It may be just as effective as glucosamine sulphate in reducing the symptoms and free from serious side effects. Further study is required to ascertain the mechanism of action beside its antioxidant effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".