Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: Osteoarthritis is a pervasive, degenerative, inflammatory condition that affects people all over the world. Its debilitating impacts affect activities of daily living and quality of life for millions of people and its direct and indirect costs total billions of dollars yearly. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the first line treatment for osteoarthritis, but their long-term use includes gastrointestinal bleeding and kidney damage as adverse effects and presents a significant cause of concern for those utilizing them for therapy. Turmeric, a rhizomatous herb, has been effectively used in Ayurvedic medicine for generations as an anti-inflammatory. This paper will explore the recent evidence of the effectiveness of turmeric as an alternative treatment for osteoarthritis in adults. Methods: The literature search was conducted using Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar for peer reviewed articles with timeframes no older than five years (2014+) that investigated the efficacy of turmeric (curcuminoid) therapy for patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis. The expansive results were refined by limitations including random controlled trials and human only studies. Data was drawn from six highly specific and timely studies upon which this paper is based. Results: Six studies with a total of 627 subjects with knee osteoarthritis were included. All studies were conducted in Asia. Curcuminoids significantly reduced knee pain based on visual analogue scores and improved subjects’ quality of life. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores were significantly improved and the use of breakthrough medications was measurably reduced through the use of curcuminoids. The study subjects reported no adverse events. Conclusions: In the last five years, multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacious nature of turmeric in the treatment of osteoarthritis as both a standalone treatment and as an adjunct to standard therapies to minimize the risks associated with their adverse effects. The studies reviewed were small, used varying amounts of curcuminoid with inconsistent methods of improving bioavailability, and all were conducted in Asia therefore necessitating further clinical investigation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".