An open-label six-month extension study to investigate the safety and efficacy of an extract of Artemisia annua for managing pain, stiffness and functional limitation associated with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This six-month single-centre open-label extension study, conducted at the University of Otago, Dunedin, follows from a previously published 12-week pilot double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study of dietary supplement, Arthrem® (ART) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. The pilot double-blind study showed that treatment with ART 150 mg twice-daily was associated with clinically relevant pain reduction. The extension study aims were to assess longer-term safety and efficacy during six months' treatment following the pilot trial. METHOD: Patients who completed the pilot double-blind study had the option to continue on open-label treatment with ART for a further six months. Safety was assessed by adverse event monitoring and laboratory tests at three and six months. Efficacy was assessed at three and six months using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC®). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients entered the optional extension and 28 completed six months' treatment. ART was well tolerated when taken for up to nine months. Improvements in WOMAC® efficacy parameters reported in the double-blind phase of the study were maintained over six months. CONCLUSION: ART appears to be a safe and effective alternative for managing the symptoms of OA over an extended period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".