THE EFFECTS OF CETYLATED FATTY ACID CREAM ON PAIN, RANGE OF MOTION, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF PATIENTS WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE This investigation examined the effects of using a topical cream consisting of cetylated fatty acids (CFA) on pain and range of motion (ROM) in patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) of one or both knees. METHODS 42 patients, 35 women and 7 men, diagnosed with knee OA were matched and randomly assigned(using a double-blind study design) to 1 of 2 topical treatment groups:1) CFA (N=21;age=21;age=61.9±11.9y);or2) placebo(P) group(N=21;age=64.9±10.5y). Patients were tested on 3 occasions:1) baseline(T1) period prior to cream treatment,2) then after 3 days without treatment, with measures obtained after 30min of first application (T2), and 3) following a 30-day treatment period consisting of cream application twice per day (T3). Assessments for pain, physical function, and stiffness included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) and ROM was assessed using a goniometer in both the supine and prone body positions with knees in a fully extended and flexed positions. Test-retest reliabilities for all ROM tests ranged from 0.95 to 0.99. RESULTS Supine ROM of the knees in a flexed position increased at T2 and T3 in CFA whereas no differences were observed in P. In the supine extended position, a significant improvement in the ability to straighten the knees was observed at T3 in CFA only. No improvements were observed in prone knee ROM at any time point in either group. WOMAC scales indicated significant reductions in pain and stiffness and enhanced physical function at T2 and T3 in CFA. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that the use of a topical cream containing CFA is an effective treatment for reducing pain, stiffness, and improving physical function in patients with OA. Specifically, patients in CFA had significantly greater ROM of the knee in the supine extended and flexed knee positions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".