MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044785232 · doi:10.2147/oarrr.s71161

Efficacy of a natural mineral complex in North American adults with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

2014· article· en· W2044785232 on OpenAlexaff
Malkanthi Evans, Dale Wilson, Najla Guthrie

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Rheumatology Research and Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsKGK Synergize (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboWOMACOsteoarthritisMedicinePhysical therapyCrossover studyKnee painRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy of a hydrothermal mineral complex (HMC) supplement in participants with knee osteoarthritis. Patients and methods: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week crossover study with 150 participants receiving either placebo or HMC for 4 weeks, with a 4-week washout period. The primary endpoint was WOMAC™ pain, and secondary endpoints were WOMAC™ physical function and stiffness, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor a, interleukin 6, and safety. Results: There were no significant differences in WOMAC™ pain, stiffness, or physical function scores between groups. Within groups, subjects on both HMC and placebo reported improvements ( P <0.001) in all WOMAC™ domains. HMC performed significantly better in total SF-36 scores ( P =0.05) and physical function ( P =0.02), and had improved total physical activity ( P =0.06) and social functioning ( P =0.09) scores compared with placebo. Within groups, physical function ( P =0.01), limitations due to mental health/emotional well-being ( P =0.02), bodily pain ( P =0.001), and total physical ( P =0.003) and mental health scores ( P =0.02) improved in participants on HMC, whereas improvements in bodily pain ( P =0.001), general health ( P =0.01), and total physical activity ( P =0.04) were reported in placebo. Subjects on HMC with body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m 2 showed a trend toward decreased pain scores ( P =0.10), while pain increased in those administered placebo. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in WOMAC™ pain scores increased from 28% of HMC-administered participants at week 2 to 41% at week 4, and decreased to 37% after 2 weeks of washout. In comparison, 41% of placebo-administered subjects achieved MCII by week 2 and week 4. A 10.4% greater increase in tumor necrosis factor α levels was seen in participants receiving placebo than those receiving HMC ( P =0.07). There were no differences between groups in adverse events. Conclusion: HMC significantly improved physical function and total physical activity, improving the quality of life of participants. HMC was most effective in normal-weight subjects. Increased dosage may be required for North American subjects with BMI >25 kg/m 2 . Keywords: knee osteoarthritis, WOMAC™, SF-36, hydrothermal mineral complex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Rheumatology Research and ReviewsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207