Evaluating the efficacy of oral collagen in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases today.However, the effectiveness of collagen supplementation in the treatment of KOA remains controversial.This meta-analysis aims to examine the efficacy of collagen preparations on KOA symptoms.Method: The meta-analysis was conducted on 3 databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane.Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for analysis regarding the benefits of oral collagen supplementation, using the Visual analog scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).Medical quality was extracted and evaluated.Results: There were 13 studies with a total of 1708 patients, including 934 patients in the intervention group and 774 patients in the placebo group.Oral collagen significantly reduced WOMAC (MD=-3.11;95% CI: -8.06-1.84;p<0.01), and VAS scores (MD=-0.44;95% CI: -3.23-2.34;p<0.01).Conclusions: Oral collagen supplementation is effective for KOA patients, helping to improve both WOMAC and VAS scores clinically.Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost of collagen therapy for patients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it