MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042313743 · doi:10.1089/acm.2020.0128

Curcumagalactomannoside/Glucosamine Combination Improved Joint Health Among Osteoarthritic Subjects as Compared to Chondroitin Sulfate/Glucosamine: Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Study

2020· article· en· W3042313743 on OpenAlex

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

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisChondroitin sulfateGlucosamineRandomized controlled trialWOMACVisual analogue scaleEveningInternal medicinePhysical therapyGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: A combination of curcumagalactomannosides (CGM) (400 mg) with glucosamine hydrochloride (GLN) (500 mg) was evaluated against a standard dietary supplement combination chondroitin sulfate (CHN) (415 mg)/GLN (500 mg) for their effectiveness in alleviating the pain and symptoms among osteoarthritic subjects. Design: Randomized, double-blinded and active-controlled study. Settings/Location: The study was conducted in a hospital-based research center in Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Subjects: Eighty subjects (38 males and 42 females), with confirmed osteoarthritis (OA) (Class I–III), were randomized into two parallel groups designated as Group I (CGM-GLN) and Group II (CHN-GLN). Interventions: All the study subjects were supplemented with their corresponding intervention capsules (ether CGM along with GLN or CHN along with GLN), as a single oral dose twice a day, once in the morning 10–15 min before breakfast and again in the evening before dinner, for 84 days. Outcome measures: A validated treadmill uphill walking protocol was used for the study, and the efficiency of supplementation was evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire at the baseline, 28th, and 84th day following the treatment. Mechanism of action of CGM-GLN combination was analyzed by measuring the levels of serum inflammatory markers interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM) at the baseline and 84th day. Results: CGM-GLN was found to offer significant beneficial effects to pain, stiffness, and physical function of OA subjects compared with CHN-GLN, which was evident from the improvement in walking performance, VAS score, KPS score, and WOMAC score. The efficiency of CGM-GLN was almost double compared with the CHN-GLN by the end of the study (84th day). A significant reduction of inflammatory serum marker levels was observed among CGM-GLN subjects compared with CHN-GLN subjects. Compared with the baseline, CGM-GLN produced 54.52%, 59.08%, and 22.03% reduction in IL-1β, IL-6, and sVCAM levels, respectively. Whereas CHN-GLN group of subjects expressed only 23.17%, 21.38%, and 6.82% reduction in IL-1β, IL-6, and sVCAM levels, respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, the present study demonstrated the potential benefits of CGM-GLN supplements in alleviating the symptoms and function of OA subjects compared with the standard CHN-GLN treatment. The augmented efficacy of CGM-GLN combination could be attributed to the enhanced anti-inflammatory effect of CGM.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.275 · 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