Glucosamine and lower mortality and cancer incidence: Selection bias in the observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucosamine is a widely used supplement to treat joint pain and osteoarthritis despite inconclusive randomized trial results on its effectiveness. In contrast, observational studies associate glucosamine with significant reductions in mortality and cancer incidence. We evaluated the extent of bias, particularly selection bias, to explain these surprising beneficial effects. METHODS: We searched the literature to identify all observational studies reporting on the effect of glucosamine use on major outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 11 observational studies, reporting a mean 16% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% CI: 0.81-0.87) with glucosamine use, as well as significant reductions in cancer incidence and other major diseases including cardiovascular, respiratory and diabetes. We show that these significant effects can result from selection bias due to collider stratification, as all studies used "prevalent" cohorts, where glucosamine use started before cohort entry, and where subjects agreed to join the cohorts. Our illustration of the bias using the UK Biobank publication involving a half-million subjects shows how a true rate ratio of mortality of 1.0 in the population can result in a biased rate ratio of 0.82 in the prevalent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The observational studies reporting significant reductions in mortality, cancer incidence and other outcomes with glucosamine were affected by selection bias from collider stratification. In the absence of properly conducted observational studies that circumvent this bias by considering "new users", the studies to date cannot support the prescription of this supplement as a preventive measure for mortality, cancer, and other chronic diseases.
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 | 0.280 | 0.486 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".