Clinical response to probiotic supplementation in patients with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Amelioration of pain and symptoms in osteoarthritis (OA) is a challenge owing to potential side effects of current medications and need of its long-term use. Probiotic supplementation has a promising profile on immunomodulation, reduction in inflammation, and beneficial effect on bone metabolism. Aims and Objectives: The study aimed to determine the effect of probiotic supplementation in OA patients. Materials and Methods: This hospital-based intervention was conducted among 58 patients with OA-knee for a period from June 2021 to August 2021, who were randomized into control and interventional groups and who were asked to consume conventional curd and probiotic curd, respectively. However, data analysis was limited to 25 and 27 participants in the control and interventional groups, respectively, after 8 weeks, owing to dropouts. Anthropometric measurements, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP levels) were obtained at the beginning and end of the study period. Results: After 8 weeks of intervention, there was a significant improvement in WOMAC and VAS scores in the interventional group as compared to the control groups. Furthermore, hs-CRP levels were significantly reduced in interventional group than the control group. Conclusion: Probiotics supplementation has the potential as a disease-modifying therapeutic agent in clinical management of OA knee patients, by improving WOMAC scores and VAS scores and reducing hs-CRP levels.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".