A Blinded Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial on the Use of Astaxanthin as an Adjunct to Splinting in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional supplementation is a potential adjunct in the conservative management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This study investigated whether astaxanthin (a beta-carotenoid) increased the effectiveness of splinting in managing CTS. METHODS: This is a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial where 63 patients with electrodiagnostically confirmed CTS were randomly allocated into either the experimental group (n = 32) (astaxanthin-4-mg capsules + splinting) or the control group (n = 31) (placebo + splinting). Medications were taken for 9 weeks followed by a 3-week washout. The primary outcome measure was the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS). Secondary outcome measures in the study included physical impairments, disability, and health status measures. Electrodiagnostic testing was performed before entry into the study and again at 12 weeks. All other outcomes were measured at baseline, 6, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: There was a reduction in symptoms as measured by the SSS over the course of treatment in both groups (p = 0.002), but no differences between the groups (p = 0.18). The Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and the Short Form 36-item Health Survey showed no effects over time or between treatment groups. The baseline difference between the groups in the level of total cholesterol and low-density lipoproteins remained constant over the course of the study. Impairment measures demonstrated no significant changes in grip, dexterity, or sensation. CONCLUSION: At present, the role for astaxanthin as an adjunct in conservative management of CTS has not been established.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".