MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014293196

"Efficacy and safety of Xinfeng capsule in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial".

2020· article· en· W3014293196 on OpenAlex
Jianjun Liu, Yan Sun, X Chen, W Zhang, Liu He, James Cheng-Chung W

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAntioxidants, Aging, Portulaca oleracea
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisErythrocyte sedimentation ratePlaceboInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Bone mineralOsteoporosis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xinfeng capsule (XFC) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Patients with OA were assigned to the XFC group [treated with XFC and a glucosamine (GS) placebo, n = 129] or the GS group (treated with GS and an XFC placebo, n = 126). Both groups were treated for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference between the two groups in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA (WOMAC) index total score at 4th week. The secondary endpoints were the visual analogue scale for pain, Lequesne index, function influence index rating, quality of life as assessed by the Short Form-36, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein concentration at baseline and at second week and 4th week. Bone mineral density were checked by X ray absorptiometry at baseline and 4th week. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, all patients in both groups showed similar significant improvements compared with baseline. There were no significant differences between groups regarding pain relief, bilateral femoral bone mineral density, and laboratory indices such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein concentration. Both groups had a significantly lower function influence index rating score and curative effect for each sign/symptom in week 4 than in week 0, and these changes did not significantly differ between groups. XFC was superior to GS in improving the WOMAC index total score, WOMAC scores for function and stiffness, integrated symptoms, physiological function, energy, emotional function, mental health, and health?changes. Fourteen adverse reactions were reported, and the incidence of adverse reactions did not significantly differ between groups. The most common adverse reactions were hepatic impairment, kidney functional damage, gastrectasia, and facial skin allergy. The types of adverse reactions did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: XFC is effective and safe in the treatment of OA. XFC was superior to GS in improving the WOMAC index total score, WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness, and function, visual analogue scale for pain, Lequesne index, and Short Form-36 quality of life.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.210 · 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