Meta-analysis of flavonoids for the treatment of haemorrhoids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of flavonoids on those symptoms important to patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing any type of flavonoid to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, retrieved all potentially relevant studies and extracted data. RESULTS: Fourteen eligible trials randomized 1514 patients. Studies were of moderate quality and showed variability in the results with potential publication bias. Meta-analyses using random-effects models suggested that flavonoids decrease the risk of not improving or persisting symptoms by 58 per cent (relative risk (RR) 0.42 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.28 to 0.61)) and showed an apparent reduction in the risk of bleeding (RR 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.19 to 0.57)), persistent pain (RR 0.35 (95 per cent c.i. 0.18 to 0.69)), itching (RR 0.65 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.97)) and recurrence (RR 0.53 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.69)). CONCLUSION: Limitations in methodological quality, heterogeneity and potential publication bias raise questions about the apparent beneficial effects of flavonoids in the treatment of haemorrhoids.
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.
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) | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it