Efficacy of combination chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride in osteoarthritis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disorder, leading to reduced mobility and disability. Currently, in OA, basic therapy with slow-acting symptomatic drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) is recommended, among which chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine hydrochloride (HS), as well as their combinations, have the most convincing evidence of effectiveness. The combined drugs of CS and HS include the drug ARTRA®. The purpose of this article was to provide a systematic review of the efficacy studies of the combination drug CS and HS (ARTRA®). Of the 20 publications on the study of the efficacy of ARTRA®, 6 articles with a total of 3683 patients met the inclusion criteria. In patients treated with ARTRA, both Visual Analogue Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index pain relief was observed at all time points (3, 4, and 6 months). Functional capacity of patients also had positive dynamics in the intervention groups in all presented studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".