"Efficacy and safety of Xinfeng capsule in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial".
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".