MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118098461 · doi:10.3810/psm.2013.09.2021

<i>Cissus Quadrangularis</i>Reduces Joint Pain in Exercise-Trained Men: A Pilot Study

2013· article· en· W2118098461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard J. Bloomer, Tyler M. Farney, Cameron G. McCarthy, Sang-Rok Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisJoint painPlaceboSchmidt sting pain indexInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Strenuous, high-volume exercise is often associated with inflammation and joint pain. Cissus quadrangularis (CQ) has been reported to have anti-inflammatory activity. The purpose of our study was to determine the therapeutic effects of CQ supplementation in healthy, exercise-trained men with joint-specific pain. METHODS: Twenty-nine men between the ages of 20 and 46 years, who reportedly experienced chronic joint pain as a result of strenuous exercise, participated in our pilot study. All men received CQ 3200 mg daily for 8 weeks. Before and after the 8-week intervention period, subjects completed a questionnaire to determine their degree of joint pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis [WOMAC]). Clinical measures (eg, heart rate, blood pressure, blood biomarkers) were also collected for each subject pre- (baseline) and post-intervention. RESULTS: Subject ratings for multiple variables within the WOMAC Index improved (decreased) significantly (P < 0.05), with the subject mean total WOMAC score decreasing from 25.4 ± 2.4 to 17.4 ± 2.1 (~31%), pre- to post-intervention. No clinical measure was significantly impacted by use of CQ supplementation. CONCLUSION: An 8-week course of supplementation with CQ reduced joint pain in a sample of 29 young, otherwise healthy, exercise-trained men. Additional study is needed to extend these findings, including comparison with a placebo-controlled cohort, and possibly, examining effects of CQ use in women and older adult subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207