The comparative efficacy of L-glutamine, celecoxib, and glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the therapeutic efficacy of L-glutamine (L-Gln) on pathological progression and clinical symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA), and compare with glucosamine sulfate (GS), and celecoxib (CXB). Rats were administered sodium chloride, L-Gln, GS, or CXB via gavage for eight weeks starting from the fifth week after sham operation or Anterior Cruciate Ligament Transection (ACLT) + Medial Meniscectomy (MMx). Then the severity of knee OA in rats was evaluated by serological analysis, histological examination and imaging examination. In addition, patients with mild primary OA were administered L-Gln, GS, or CXB orally for 12 weeks in accordance with the randomization principle. The efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 24 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne score. Treatment with L-Gln alleviated the increased concentration of serum cartilage degradation markers caused by OA in rats. Histological tests showed improvement in knee joint cartilage destruction after treatment. Three-dimensional CT scans and reconstructions revealed a reduction in osteophyte formation and subchondral bone loss. L-glutamine performed as well as or better than glucosamine sulfate and celecoxib in all comparative measures among the three treatment groups. In clinical trials, the WOMAC pain and physical function subscale scores, as well as the Lequesne score, decreased from baseline in all three patient groups during follow-up, with no significant differences observed between the groups. Our research indicates that L-Gln is comparable to GS and CXB in improving the pathological progression and clinical efficacy of OA, which makes it a promising drug for the treatment of osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".