An Observational 1-Month Trial on the Efficacy and Safety of Promerim for Improving Knee Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the oral intake of promerim in the elimination of acute pain and discomfort associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Single-center, 1-month, prospective, observational clinical trial. A total of 92 patients not older than 70 years were included. Patients were offered to use 720-mg promerim for the first 15 days after admission after breakfast and then 360 mg for the second 15 days. All patients were analyzed with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, which ranges from 0 to 10, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score before the start of treatment and 1 month after the start. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 15.0 software. An α level of P < .05 was assumed to be statistically significant. Results: This study comprised 92 patients (69 women and 23 men) with a mean age of 51.5 (range: 40-69) years. Before treatment, the mean VAS score was 5.6 ± 1.1, and after treatment, the mean VAS score was 2.6 ± 1.7. Treatment with promerim consistently showed a significant decrease in the VAS score ( P < .001). The mean WOMAC score of the patients was 46.4 ± 8.2 before treatment. After treatment, the mean WOMAC score was 72.1 ± 14.4. Treatment with promerim consistently showed a significant increase in the WOMAC score ( P < .001). Conclusions: The results of this single-center, open-label clinical study demonstrate that promerim is a viable natural treatment option for treating knee OA. We recommend that 720-mg promerim taken once daily for the first 15 days after admission and 360 mg taken once daily for the next 15 days significantly and rapidly reduced composite pain and stiffness in the knee OA within 1 month.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".