Review: some herbal medicines and plant extracts reduced pain and disability and improved function in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long L, Soeken K, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology2001 Jul; 40 : 779 –93 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with osteoarthritis, are herbal medicines and plant extracts effective and safe? Studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Biosis, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library (all from inception to May 2000); scanning the bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews; and by contacting experts and manufacturers in the field. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials comparing 1 herbal treatment with a placebo or another active drug in patients with osteoarthritis. Studies focusing on back pain, osteoarthritic conditions of the spine, or on parenterally applied herbal preparations were excluded, as were studies that lacked essential methodological detail such as dosage, baseline data, and clinical end points. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, intervention type and duration, and outcomes. 12 trials and 2 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DRheumatology%26rft.stitle%253DRheumatology%2B%2528Oxford%2529%26rft.aulast%253DLong%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D40%26rft.issue%253D7%26rft.spage%253D779%26rft.epage%253D793%26rft.atitle%253DHerbal%2Bmedicines%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Btreatment%2Bof%2Bosteoarthritis%253A%2Ba%2Bsystematic%2Breview%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1093%252Frheumatology%252F40.7.779%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11477283%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/rheumatology/40.7.779&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11477283&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F2%2F57.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170448000009&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".