Comparison of glucosamine‐containing dietary supplements on knee osteoarthritis symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A preliminary, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group clinical study compared efficacy and tolerability of dietary supplements on 107 total subjects with mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee over 8 weeks. Average age was 57 ± 10 years. 18 subjects per group took either placebo (maltodextrin) (Group 1), glucosamine HCl (1500 mg) (Group 2), glucosamine HCl (1500 mg) & chondroitin sulfate (1200 mg) (Group 3), glucosamine HCl (1500 mg) & chondroitin (1200 mg) & sodium hyaluronate (3.3 mg) (Group 4), glucosamine HCl (1500 mg) & a proprietary herbal extract (250 mg) & sodium hyaluronate (3.3 mg) (Group 5), or an experimental formula (Group 6). Acetaminophen was used as rescue medication. WOMAC, SF‐36v2, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and Pain Relief Diary (PRD) outcomes were measured at 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. Comparisons of Intention‐To‐Treat data across all groups were performed using one‐way factorial ANOVA. There were no significant differences among groups at baseline. Incidence of side effects among groups was not different. All of the groups reported improvements in the subjects’ perceptions of their condition (pain, quality of life, etc.). All groups showed similar efficacy, except for the following: Group 3 was less effective in relieving pain than the other groups; and Group 5 was rated best by the subjects in decreasing joint pain and muscle aches, and showed the greatest amount of rapid‐onset improvement in physical functioning. Supported by Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.
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".