Evaluating the effects of ginger extract on knee pain, stiffness and difficulty in patients with knee osteoarthritis
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
The present study was aimed to evaluate the effects of ginger extract on knee pain, stiffness and difficulty in patients with knee osteoarthritis. 204 patients with knee osteoarthritis were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. After a 1-week washing period, the groups received ginger extract (103 cases) or placebo (101 cases). A responder was defined by a reduction in pain of > 15 mm on a visual analog scale (VAS) or by 20% reduction in the mean score of each index of the Western Ontario and Mc Master Universities (WOMAC) criteria after 6 weeks. Pain reduction according to VAS was more significant in ginger group than placebo (p<0.05). Although pain reduction according to WOMAC was greater in ginger than placebo group, the difference was not statistically significant. Reduction in morning stiffness and difficulty were statistically greater in the ginger than the placebo group (p<0.05). Also there was no difference between the two groups in side effects of therapy. In conclusion, the results showed that ginger extract is effective in reducing pain, stiffness and difficulty in patients with knee osteoarthritis, therefore is recommended as a safe drug for these patients. Key words: Osteoarthritis, ginger, pain, stiffness, knee, randomized clinical trial, human.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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