Patients who wore standard magnetic bracelets reported reduced pain from osteoarthritis of the hip or knee compared with patients wearing placebo bracelets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harlow T, Greaves C, White A, et al . Randomised controlled trial of magnetic bracelets for relieving pain in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. BMJ 2004;329:1450–4.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does short term use of magnetic bracelets reduce pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised placebo controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: {concealed}.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (patients, healthcare providers, data analysts, {data collectors, outcome assessors, statistician, and monitoring committee}*). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 12 weeks. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: 5 rural general practices in Mid Devon, UK. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 194 patients 45–80 years of age (mean age 67 y, 62% men) with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee (diagnosed by an orthopaedic surgeon, rheumatologist, or general practitioner and confirmed by radiological evidence) and scores of 8–20 on the Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC A). Exclusion criteria were use of cardiac pacemakers, current use of magnetic bracelets, surgery to the index joint (except arthroscopy), haemophilia, pregnancy, and breast feeding. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: 66 patients were allocated … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.aulast%253DHarlow%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%26rft.volume%253D329%26rft.issue%253D7480%26rft.spage%253D1450%26rft.epage%253D1454%26rft.atitle%253DRandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%2Bof%2Bmagnetic%2Bbracelets%2Bfor%2Brelieving%2Bpain%2Bin%2Bosteoarthritis%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bhip%2Band%2Bknee%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.329.7480.1450%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15604181%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=329/7480/1450&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F89.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".