The effect of oral low molecular weight liquid hyaluronic acid combination with glucosamine and chondroitin on knee osteoarthritis patients with mild knee pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The popularity of dietary supplements for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management is on the rise; however, their effects are still debated. METHODS: This study aimed to investigate the effect of an oral low molecular weight liquid hyaluronic acid supplement in the treatment of knee OA patients with mild knee pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] ≤ 3) in Taiwan population. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Forty-seven subjects were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the A+HA or the placebo groups. The subjects were required to drink a bottle contained 20 mL of A+HA or placebo daily throughout an 8-week study period. The efficacy was assessed by using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: At Week 8, significant reductions from baseline in the WOMAC pain (-2.6 ± 1.68, P < .0001), stiffness (-1.2 ± 1.50, P = .007), physical function (-5.8 ± 4.39, P < .0001), and total (-9.4 ± 5.82, P < .0001) scores were observed in the A+HA group but not in the placebo group. Significant differences in the mean change of WOMAC scores from baseline at Week 8 between groups were detected (P < .01). At Week 8, the A+HA group also showed significant improvements in SF-36 physical functioning (2.7 ± 3.10, P = .001) and bodily pain (0.7 ± 1.50, P < .05) domains. Although the A+HA group had a higher increase in the SF-36 total score than the placebo group but the difference was not statistically significant (2.1 ± 12.75 vs 0.3 ± 19.66, P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of low molecular weight liquid HA appeared to be effective for knee OA patients with mild knee pain (VAS ≤ 3) in the relief of knee OA symptoms, particularly in pain and physical function.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04352322.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".