Comparative Effectiveness of Channa sriatus Extract Versus Glucosamine Sulphate for the Treatment of Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Channa striatus, an indigenous freshwater fish, has been shown to treat knee osteoarthritis, but no study has been done to compare its effectiveness with other oral therapy. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral Channa striatus extract and glucosamine sulphate in knee osteoarthritis symptoms and physical function. This is a double-blind randomised controlled trial, conducted among 78 patients with primary knee osteoarthritis. Patients were assigned to receive either 500 mg/d of Channa striatus or 1,500 mg/d of glucosamine sulphate for 6 months. The main outcome measures were pain, stiffness and physical function, as assessed by the Western Ontario and Mc Master Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, 3- and 6-months post-randomisation. Seventy-three patients completed the study (Channa striatus, n = 37; glucosamine sulphate, n = 37). There was no significant between-group difference in the WOMAC index. However, the within-group comparison pointed to a significant improvement in all the WOMAC domains in both groups from baseline to 6 months. The effectiveness of Channa striatus shows no difference from that of glucosamine sulphate in reducing the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Channa striatus could be a new alternative treatment for the management of knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".