MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309874142 · doi:10.1002/ptr.7640

Honey and <scp><i>Nigella sativa</i></scp> against <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 in Pakistan (<scp>HNS‐COVID‐PK</scp>): A multicenter placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial

2022· article· en· W4309874142 on OpenAlex
Sohaib Ashraf, Shoaib Ashraf, Moneeb Ashraf, Muhammad Imran, Larab Kalsoom, Uzma Nasim Siddiqui, Iqra Farooq, Rutaba Akmal, Muhammad Kiwan Akram, Sidra Ashraf, Muhammad Ghufran, Nighat Majeed, Zaighum Habib, Sundas Rafique, Zain‐ul ‐Abdin, Shahroze Arshad, Muhammad Shahab, Sohail Ahmad, Hui Zheng, Ali Rafique Mirza, Sibgha Zulfiqar, Muhamad Imran Anwar, Ayesha Humayun, Talha Mahmud, Qazi Abdul Saboor, Ali Ahmad, Muhammad Ashraf, Mateen Izhar

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNigella sativa pharmacological applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboHazard ratioInternal medicineRandomizationRandomized controlled trialPopulationMulticenter trialConfidence intervalMulticenter studyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Until now, no specific and effective treatment exists for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Since honey and Nigella sativa (HNS) have established antiviral, antibacterial, antiinflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties, we tested their efficacy for this disease in a multicenter, placebo‐controlled, and randomized clinical trial at four medical care facilities in Pakistan. RT‐PCR confirmed COVID‐19 adults showing moderate or severe disease were enrolled in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either honey (1 g kg −1 day −1 ) and Nigella sativa seeds (80 mg kg −1 day −1 ) or a placebo for up to 13 days along with standard care. The outcomes included symptoms' alleviation, viral clearance, and 30‐day mortality in the intention‐to‐treat population. Three hundred and thirteen patients, 210 with moderate and 103 with severe disease, underwent randomization from April 30 to July 29, 2020. Among the moderate cases, 107 were assigned to HNS, whereas 103 were assigned to the placebo group. Among the severe cases, 50 were given HNS, and 53 were given the placebo. HNS resulted in ~50% reduction in time taken to alleviate symptoms as compared to placebo (moderate cases: 4 vs. 7 days, Hazard Ratio [HR]: 6.11; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 4.23–8.84, p &lt; 0.0001 and for severe cases: 6 vs. 13 days, HR: 4.04; 95% CI: 2.46–6.64; p &lt; 0.0001). HNS also cleared the virus earlier than placebo in both moderate cases (6 vs. 10 days, HR: 5.53; 95% CI: 3.76–8.14, p &lt; 0.0001) and severe cases (8.5 vs. 12 days, HR: 4.32; 95% CI: 2.62–7.13, p &lt; 0.0001). HNS further led to a better clinical score on day 6 with normal activity resumption in 63.6% vs. 10.9% among moderate cases (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.03–0.13, p &lt; 0.0001) and hospital discharge in 50% versus 2.8% in severe cases (OR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.09, p &lt; 0.0001). In severe cases, the mortality rate was less than 1/4th in the HNS group than in placebo (4% vs. 18.87%, OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02–0.92, p = 0.029). No HNS‐related adverse effects were observed. HNS, compared with placebo, significantly improved symptoms, expedited viral load clearance, and reduced mortality in COVID‐19 patients. This trial was registered on April 15, 2020 with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347382.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.363 · 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