Comparison of the symptomatic and chondroprotective effects of glucosamine sulphate and exercise treatments in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the symptomatic effects of glucosamine sulphate (GS) in comparison to the exercise therapy, as well effects on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) findings of cartilage loss in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with a diagnosis of knee OA were randomly divided into two groups. First group of patients (n=40) were treated with 1500 mg/day oral glucosamine sulphate and the second group (n=30) performed a home exercise program for a period of 6 months. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, significant improvements were observed in the visual analogue scale pain scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index and 20-min walking time in both groups (p< 0.001); there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups. Upon the evaluation of joint cartilage thickness by MRI, an improvement was evident in only in the area of medial femoral condyle of patients who had performed a home exercise program (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that both oral GS treatment and exercise therapy are efficient in the symptomatic treatment of patients with knee OA. However, exercise therapy found to have a better chondroprotective effect than oral GS treatment in this patient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".