Creatine In Osteoarthritis, A Randomized, Double-blinded, Placebo-controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of creatine (CR) supplementation combined with strengthening exercises in knee osteoarthritis (OA) women. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed. Patients were allocated to receive either CR or placebo (PL) and were enrolled in a lower limb resistance training program. They were assessed at baseline (PRE) and after 12 weeks (POST). The primary outcome was the physical function as measured by the timed-stands test. Secondary outcomes included lean mass, quality of life, pain, stiffness, and muscle strength. RESULTS: Physical function was significantly improved only in the CR group (p=0.006). Additionally, a significant between-group difference was observed (CR-PRE: 15.7 ± 1.4, POST: 18.1 ± 1.8; PL-PRE: 15.0 ± 1.8, POST: 15.2 ± 1.2; p=0.004). The CR group also presented improvements in physical function and stiffness subscales as evaluated by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (p=0.005 and p=0.024, respectively), whereas the PL group did not show any significant changes in these parameters (p>0.05). Additionally, only the CR group presented a significant improvement in lower limb lean mass (p=0.04) as well as in quality of life (p=0.01). Both CR and PL groups demonstrated significant reductions in pain (p<0.05). Similarly, a main effect for time revealed an increase in leg-press 1-RM (p=0.005) with no significant differences between groups (p=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: CR supplementation improves physical function, lower limb lean mass and quality of life in postmenopausal women with knee OA undergoing lower limb strengthening exercises. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00992043.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".