MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403395868 · doi:10.1089/jicm.2023.0124

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of a Herbal Formulation on Knee Joint Function in Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis

2024· article· en· W4403395868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Li, Yuanyuan Wang, Shanglong Wang, Jiancheng Zong, Zengliang Zhang, Shengcan Zou, Zhen Zhao, Yu Cao, Zimin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicinePlaceboKnee JointDouble blindPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Current treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain and stiffness have limitations, including adverse effects. Therefore, effective and safe complementary or alternative therapies are needed. Dietary supplement GJ 191, comprising Epimedium, Dioscorea, and Salvia miltiorrhiza extracts, may address this need. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated GJ 191 supplementation on knee OA symptoms. Seventy-two adults (40–75 years) with mild to moderate knee OA and mild to moderate knee pain were enrolled. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quality of Life questionnaire, knee joint range of motion, serum C-reactive protein, and rescue medication use were assessed. The Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and stiffness scores were computed using KOOS scores. Results: Decreases in WOMAC pain scores were reported by both GJ 191 and placebo groups after 6 (−1.78 ± 2.71 and −1.34 ± 1.93, respectively; p < 0.01) and 12 (−2.31 ± 2.83 and −1.59 ± 2.69, respectively; p < 0.01) weeks, with no significant difference between groups. There were decreases in WOMAC stiffness scores for participants supplemented with GJ 191 by 0.53 ± 1.22 and 0.72 ± 1.46 ( p ≤0.02) after 6 and 12 weeks, respectively, with respective decreases of 0.81 ± 1.51 and 0.75 ± 1.85 ( p ≤0.03) for those on placebo. Significant improvements in current pain, as assessed by the Pain VAS, and bodily pain were reported by the GJ 191 group after 6 and 12 weeks, while the placebo group only reported significant improvements in these measures after 12 weeks. GJ 191 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in pain and stiffness scores between GJ 191 and placebo over the 12 weeks. While both groups reported improvements in WOMAC pain from baseline, improvements in current and bodily pain were experienced sooner with GJ 191 than placebo and were sustained over the study period. GJ 191 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. (CTR#: NCT04395547).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative and Complementary MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207