MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177225094 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000026542

Efficacy of GCWB106 (Chrysanthemum zawadskii var. latilobum extract) in osteoarthritis of the knee

2021· article· en· W3177225094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeong Ku Ha, Jin Seong Kim, Joo Young Kim, Jong Bok Yun, Yun Young Kim, Kyu Sung Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisPlaceboVisual analogue scaleAdverse effectPhysical therapyPlacebo groupInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: GreenCross Wellbeing Corporation (GCWB) 106 is a food item based on Chrysanthemum zawadskii var. latilobum extract. It has an inhibitory effect on joint inflammation. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of GCWB106 for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee joint. METHODS: Overall, 121 participants with mild OA were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. One group received GCWB106 for 12 weeks and the other group received placebo for 12 weeks. Outcomes were evaluated using the Korean-Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (K-WOMAC), visual analog scale, Korean Short Form Health Survey 36 score, and laboratory test results. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of study treatment, the GCWB106 group exhibited a significant improvement compared with the placebo group in overall K-WOMAC score (P = .042) and K-WOMAC physical function score (P = .015). The GCWB106 group showed significant improvement in the visual analog scale pain score (P < .001) compared with the placebo group after 6 weeks and 12 weeks; no adverse drug reactions or serious adverse events were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: GCWB106 can safely reduce pain and improve knee function with therapeutic effects in OA of the knee joint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, Level I.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207