Comparison of seaweed pack and mudpack as treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: For knee osteoarthritis (OA), there is a demand for alternative modalities in order to delay surgery and to avoid the side effects of medications. This study compared the effects of applying seaweed pack and mudpack for the treatment of knee OA. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Methods: Twenty-five patients with knee OA who satisfied the criteria were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment method: mudpack (n=12) and seaweed pack (n=13). The two groups were treated for 20 minutes, twice a day for five continuous days at the Ocean Healing Center at Wando Island, South Korea. Participants were assessed by clinical scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey) and lab results (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, insulin-like growth factor-1 [IGF-1], tumor necrosis factor- [TNF-]) during the follow-up period. Results: For the most part, clinical scores improved after therapy and maintained improvements for four weeks in both groups (p<0.05). In the seaweed group, TNF- was significantly decreased at two weeks post-therapy (p<0.05). In both groups, IGF-1 was significantly increased immediately post-therapy (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences after therapy between the groups in clinical scores and labs. Conclusions: Seaweed packs and mudpacks had similar positive effects for knee OA. Additionally, the seaweed pack group showed decreased levels of TNF- at two weeks post-treatment, which may explain the reduced inflammatory reaction. For rehabilitation therapy, use of seaweed packs may serve as an alternative modality for the treatment of knee 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".