Herbal extracts in orofacial pain: a systematic review and direct and indirect 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
The pharmaceutical industry has been primarily focused on developing synthetic drugs to address orofacial pain (OFP)-related conditions. There is limited knowledge regarding the efficacy of the use of herbal extracts in treating OFP. A systematic review and a meta-analysis of 62 randomized controlled trials assessing the analgesic effects of herbal extracts on pain intensity in various orofacial conditions was conducted. The intervention comprised the use of herbal extracts compared with a placebo and/or standard treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity assessed before and after the intervention. The pain scores were compared with the baseline scores in each treatment. When compared with standard therapy, the pooled results of the patients who received herbal extracts revealed lower pain intensity in periodontal pain (MD = -0.92[-6.69, 4.85]), oral surgery pain (MD = 18.80[8.80, 28.79]), oral neuropathic pain (MD = 20.34[6.16, 34.52]), endodontic pain (MD = -8.04[-11.72, -4.37]), oral mucosal pain (MD = 8.74[2.76, 14.73]), and temporomandibular pain (MD = 30.94[6.04, 55.83]). The findings indicated a pain-attenuating effect of herbal extracts such as cannabis, turmeric, capsaicin, licorice, ginger, chamomile, clove, Hypericum perforatum, and Arnica montana. These findings revindicate that herbal extracts may be valuable alternatives to traditional pain medications and promising source for the development of new active ingredients for pharmaceuticals.
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 | 0.043 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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