MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285167836 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqac125

Krill oil improved osteoarthritic knee pain in adults with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a 6-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4285167836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Welma Stonehouse, Bianca Benassi-Evans, Jana Bednarz, Andrew Vincent, Stephen Hall, Catherine Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSwisse Wellness
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPlaceboWOMACKnee painRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of chronic pain and disability worldwide. Treatment generally focuses on symptom relief through nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics, which may incur side effects. Krill oil, rich in anti-inflammatory long-chain (LC) omega-3 ( ω-3) PUFAs and astaxanthin, may be a safe and effective alternative treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effects of a commercially available krill oil supplement on knee pain in adults with mild to moderate knee OA. Secondary outcomes were knee stiffness; physical function; NSAID use; Omega-3 Index; and lipid, inflammatory, and safety markers. METHODS: Healthy adults (n = 235, 40-65 y old, BMI >18.5 to <35 kg/m2), clinically diagnosed with mild to moderate knee OA, regular knee pain, and consuming <0.5 g/d LC ω-3 PUFAs, participated in a 6-mo double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Participants consumed either 4 g krill oil/d (0.60 g EPA/d, 0.28 g DHA/d, 0.45 g astaxanthin/d) or placebo (mixed vegetable oil). Knee outcomes were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) numeric scale (normalized to scores of 0-100). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 mo, and 6 mo. RESULTS: Omega-3 Index increased with the krill oil supplement compared with placebo (from 6.0% to 8.9% compared with from 5.5% to 5.4%, P < 0.001). Knee pain score improved in both groups with greater improvements for krill oil than for placebo (difference in adjusted mean change between groups at 6 mo: -5.18; 95% CI: -10.0, -0.32; P = 0.04). Knee stiffness and physical function also had greater improvements with krill oil than with placebo (difference in adjusted mean change between groups at 6 mo: -6.45; 95% CI: -12.1, -0.9 and -4.67; 95% CI: -9.26, -0.05, respectively; P < 0.05). NSAID use, serum lipids, and inflammatory and safety markers did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Krill oil was safe to consume and resulted in modest improvements in knee pain, stiffness, and physical function in adults with mild to moderate knee OA.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03483090.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations67
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207