MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227341519 · doi:10.1186/s12937-015-0115-z

Benefits of antioxidant supplements for knee osteoarthritis: rationale and reality

2015· review· en· W2227341519 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashok K. Grover, Sue E. Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisCurcuminPhysical therapyArthritisChondroitin sulfateAlternative medicineDiseaseComplementary therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arthritis causes disability due to pain and inflammation in joints. There are many forms of arthritis, one of which is osteoarthritis whose prevalence increases with age. It occurs in various joints including hip, knee and hand with knee osteoarthritis being more prevalent. There is no cure for it. The management strategies include exercise, glucosamine plus chondroitin sulfate and NSAIDs. In vitro and animal studies provide a rationale for the use of antioxidant supplements for its management. This review assesses the reality of the benefits of antioxidant supplements in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Several difficulties were encountered in examining this issue: poorly conducted studies, a lack of uniformity in disease definition and diagnosis, and muddling of conclusions from attempts to isolate the efficacious molecules. The antioxidant supplements with most evidence for benefit for pain relief and function in knee osteoarthritis were based on curcumin and avocado-soya bean unsaponifiables. Boswellia and some herbs used in Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine may also be useful. The benefits of cuisines with the appropriate antioxidants should be assessed because they may be more economical and easier to incorporate into the lifestyle.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations249
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition JournalSame topicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207