MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008002852 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000018912

A clinical pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of oral intake of phellinus linteus (sanghuang) extract on knee joint and articular cartilage

2020· article· en· W3008002852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yong Ho Ku, Hyun Lee, Hwa Yeon Ryu, Hae-Jin Park, Mi-Rae Shin, Jae Hui Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaejeon University
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scaleClinical trialInclusion and exclusion criteriaPlaceboPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineSurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most common form of degenerative arthritis. We used Phellinus linteus (PL), which has been well-known anti-inflammatory function. In this study, we will evaluate if PL extract improves symptoms with KOA. METHODS: This study will be an 8-week single-center randomized controlled double-blind clinical trial. Total of 24 subjects with KOA will be enrolled and they will be divided into 3 groups, PL 1,000 mg, PL 1,500 mg and placebo. Subjects will be followed up every 4 weeks with efficacy and safety at the 2nd and 3rd visits. All subjects should maintain a dosage schedule for this protocol. The primary outcome will be assessed with the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities. And the secondary outcomes will be measured using the visual analog scale, quality of life scale (EQ-5D-3L), ESR, C-reactive protein, and C-telopeptide of type-II collagen. Statistical analysis will be performed on the principle of full analysis set. DISCUSSION: This study has inclusion and exclusion criteria and a well-controlled intervention. This clinical trial is the first step to assess the efficacy and safety of PL in patients with KOA. This study will make an important contribution to the literature and aid follow-up research into the use of PL in KOA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207