Efficacy and Safety of Aflapin®, a Novel <i>Boswellia Serrata</i> Extract, in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Short-Term 30-Day Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: gum resin, standardized to 20% 3-O-acetyl-11-keto-β-boswellic acid. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial confirms the efficacy of Aflapin in ameliorating the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, seventy subjects were recruited and randomized into Placebo (n = 35) and Aflapin (n = 35) groups. Subjects received either 100 mg Aflapin or a placebo for 30 days. All subjects were evaluated for pain and physical function using the standard tools i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Lequesne Functional Index (LFI), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at the baseline (Day 0), 5, and 30 days of treatment. Additionally, several inflammatory and cartilage biomarkers, including matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cartilage Oligomeric Matrix Protein (COMP), and collagen type II cleavage (C2C) were evaluated. Total blood chemistry analyses were conducted to affirm the safety of Aflapin. RESULTS: Sixty-seven subjects completed the study. Aflapin conferred significant improvements in pain scores as early as five days of treatment. Post-trial, VAS, LFI, WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC function, and total WOMAC scores decreased in the Aflapin group by 45%, 40.9%, 44.4%, 66.3%, 44.4%, and 48%, respectively. Aflapin supplementation also reduced circulating MMP-3, TNFα, hsCRP, and C2C. CONCLUSION: This investigation affirms that Aflapin is clinically efficacious, fast-acting, and safe in the management of osteoarthritis. No significant adverse effects were observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".