Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Gyebutang Granules Combined with Acupuncture for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Protocol for a Multicenter, Randomized, Assessor-blinded, 2-armed Parallel, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Due to the aging population in Korea, knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become an increasingly common condition. Many patients with KOA prefer analgesics, herbal medicines, acupuncture, or exercise, rather than arthroscopic surgery or a knee replacement. Gyebutang (GB) granules are a herbal extract widely used to treat KOA in traditional Korean medicine, but there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety.Methods: A multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded, 2-armed parallel, controlled clinical trial has been designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of GB combined with acupuncture for the treatment of KOA. There will be 100 patients with KOA enrolled in the study from 3 traditional Korean medicine hospitals. The participants will be randomly allocated to an experimental group (GB and acupuncture) or a control group (celecoxib and acupuncture) in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups will receive acupuncture treatment once a week for 6 weeks; one group will receive GB and the other will receive celecoxib for the same duration.Results: The primary outcome will be the change of knee osteoarthritic pain, based on scores on a 100 mm visual analog scale. The secondary outcomes will be scores on a numeric rating scale, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, patient global assessment, European quality of life 5-dimension 5-level scale, and adverse events.<br>Conclusion: The results of this study will provide evidence of efficacy and safety of GB as a treatment for patients with 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".