Collagen Hydrolysates: A Source of Bioactive Peptides Derived from Food Sources for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder, with a social and financial burden that is expected to increase in the coming years. Currently, there are no effective medications to treat it. Due to limited treatment options, patients often resort to supplements, such as collagen hydrolysates (CHs). CHs are products with low molecular weight (MW) peptides, often between 3 and 6 kDa, and are a result of industrialized processed collagen. Collagen extraction is often a by-product of the meat industry, with the main source for collagen-based products being bovine, although it can also be obtained from porcine and piscine sources. CHs have demonstrated positive results in clinical trials related to joint health, such as decreased joint pain, increased mobility, and structural joint improvements. The bioactivity of CHs is primarily attributed to their bioactive peptide (BAP) content. However, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the digestion, bioavailability, and bioactivity of CH-derived BAPs, and how different CH products compare in that regard. The present review discusses CHs and their BAP content as potential treatments for OA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".