MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2986607781

A randomized controlled trial evaluating methylsulfonylmethane versus placebo to prevent knee pain in military initial entry trainees.

2018· article· en· W2986607781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David J. Tennent, Christina M. Hylden, Benjamin K. Kocher, James K. Aden, Anthony E. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboOsteoarthritisMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialKnee painAlternative medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) is a naturally occurring sulfur containing substance that has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative properties. Previous studies using MSM as an oral supplement to improve pain in those patients with knee osteoarthritis have shown superiority compared to placebo. However, these studies are not translatable to active individuals performing high impact activities and have not evaluated MSM as a preventative measure. METHODS: A total of 180 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 40 years were enrolled. Subjects were randomized into 2 groups receiving either 3 grams OptiMSM methylsulfonylmethane (Bergstrom Nutrition, Vancouver, WA) or a placebo for 8 weeks. Outcomes measured were the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Profile of Moods States (POMS). RESULTS: Three grams of MSM administered daily did not provide significant improvements in the 5 KOOS subscales or the 6 POMS subscales at 30 days or 60 days. CONSLUSION: Although 3 grams of MSM daily can be used safely, there does not appear to be a significant improvement in KOOS or POMS.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→