The effect of mud therapy on pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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
OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effect of mud therapy on pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A detailed search of PubMed®/MEDLINE® was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies published before 9 March 2013 that compared mud therapy with control group treatments in patients with knee OA. RESULTS: A quantitative meta-analysis of seven studies (410 patients) was performed. There was a significant difference between the groups in the visual analogue scale pain score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.73) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score (SMD -0.30), with differences in favour of mud therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mud therapy is a favourable option for pain relief in patients with knee OA. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials need to be conducted to explore this issue further and to confirm this conclusion.
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 | 0.206 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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