The Effects of Curcuma Longa on the Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a joint disorder characterized by chronic, degenerative, and irreversible inflammation leading to pain and disability. The standard drugs are ineffective for many patients and are usually associated with numerous side effects such as gastrointestinal complaints. Curcuma longa and its bioactive compounds have been considered for OA. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of Curcuma longa and its derivatives on OA. Pubmed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched, and PRISMA guidelines were followed to build this review. Only Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that performed placebo-comparison were included. Most included studies showed that Curcuma longa or formulations prepared with curcuminoids can benefit the OA scores such as Visual Analog Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; and Lequesne's pain functional index. The use of Curcuma longa extracts or curcuminoids can benefit patients with OA. Nevertheless, the available RCTs show treatment time, doses, and formulations heterogeneity. Thus, the standardization of RCTs can guide researchers and physicians on the dosages and formulations that are most effective in addressing this condition, which is very prevalent in the world's populations.
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it