The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Gumiganghwal‐Tang in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Phase II Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: on lipopolysaccharide- (LPS-) stimulated peritoneal macrophages in a dose-dependent manner. It is empirically used for the treatment of inflammatory disease, but there are few reports of clinical trials that investigate its efficacy and safety. The current study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of GMGHT in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a multicenter, two-armed, double-blinded, randomized, placebo controlled study of GMGHT over 6 weeks. Eligible patients who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for OA were randomized to receive either GMGHT or the placebo. Clinical assessments included measurement of knee pain and function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), patient global assessment (PGA), and knee pain scores every 2 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were enrolled (91.4% female; mean age, 58.7 ± 8.1 years). At baseline, pain visual analogue score (VAS) was 67.2 ± 1.4, resp. 71.3 ± 1.6 (treatment, resp. placebo group, p=0.84), and total WOMAC score was 55.2 ± 1.6, resp. 55.6 ± 1.5 (p = 0.84). After 6 weeks, the pain VAS was 43.0 ± 2.5, resp. 61.6 ± 2.5 (p < 0.01) and the total WOMAC score was 34.1 ± 2.4, resp. 46.9 ± 1.8 (p < 0.01). No patients withdrew because of treatment emergent adverse events. Expected adverse events including dyspepsia, liver function abnormality, and lower extremity edema were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with GMGHT resulted in significant improvement in pain, function, and global assessment, and it was generally safe and well tolerated in patients with OA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".