Gyejigachulbutang (Gui‐Zhi‐Jia‐Shu‐Fu‐Tang, Keishikajutsubuto, TJ‐18) in Degenerative Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: Lessons and Responders from a Multicenter Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Double‐Blind Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background . Gyejigachulbutang (GUI‐ZHI‐JIA‐SHU‐FU‐TANG, GCB) is an herbal formula widely prescribed in traditional East Asian medicine practice for arthritis and muscle pain. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of GCB for degenerative knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods . Eighty patients with KOA were randomly assigned to the GCB group or the placebo group in a 1 : 1 ratio in two Korean medicine hospitals. Patients took GCB or placebo three times a day for 4 weeks. Primary outcome was the change in the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for knee pain from baseline to 4 th week. Secondary outcomes were the change in the VAS score from baseline to 2 nd week and 8 th week, Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (K‐WOMAC), European Quality of Life Five Dimensions questionnaire (EQ‐5D), and safety. Results . There was no significant difference between the compared indicators of the GCB and placebo groups. However, in subgroup analysis, GCB was effective for subjects with a BMI lower than 25 kg/m 2 . The dose of pain medication was significantly lower in the GCB group than in the placebo group after four weeks ( p = 0.016). There were no serious adverse events in the GCB group. Conclusions . GCB was not effective in primary outcome analysis. In exploratory subgroup analysis, GCB might be effective for individuals with BMI lower than 25 kg/m 2 for the treatment of degenerative KOA. GCB may also help reduce the consumption of pain medication. Furthermore, research is required for our hypothesis. This trial is registered with KCT0003024 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".