Effects of Standardized Hops (Humulus lupulus L.) Extract on Joint Health: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multiple Dose Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study’s aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 14-days oral supplementation of a standardized hops extract containing 30% alpha acids, Humulus lupulus L. on individuals with osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods: Thirty-three subjects (26 female, 7 male, 57.0 ± 6.9 years) participated in this randomized, double-blind, multi-dose study. Perceived pain (WOMAC), 20-meter walking performance and clinical safety markers (metabolic panel) was evaluated after 0 and 14 days of standardized hops extract (Perluxan®, 1 g/day [HOPS1G], n = 11 or 2 g/day [HOPS2G], n = 10 or placebo [PLA], n = 12). Changes in WOMAC perceived pain scores from baseline were calculated for all groups and compared against changes observed in PLA. Oneway ANOVA were used to evaluate group differences at each measurement time point. Data in presented as means ± SD. A p-value of 0.05 was used to assess statistical significance. Results: Pain relief while walking on a flat surface showed significant improvement with HOPS2G two hours after dosing. Additionally, pain was reduced to a greater magnitude in HOPS1G and HOPS2G two and four days after supplementation while changes in HOPS1G after six days were also significantly different than PLA changes. Reductions in pain while lying in bed were significantly greater in HOPS2G three days after supplementation while HOPS1G exhibited greater reductions 12 days after supplementation. Selfreported pain scores while sitting or lying in bed were reduced to a greater magnitude in HOPS1G in comparison to HOPS2G after 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13 days of supplementation. Conclusion: Supplementation with two different doses of supplementation yielded greater improvements in pain reduction while walking and also demonstrated improvements in the amount that sleep was disrupted due to pain. Self-reported pain levels while sitting or lying in bed exhibited a dosedependent pattern. No clinically meaningful changes in blood or urine markers were noted as a result of supplementation between groups. Supplementation did not appear to impact 20-meter walking performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".