Comparative study of the efficacy of glucosamine sulfate capsules and Huoxue Xiaozhong prescription in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and the recovery of knee joint function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on the difference in efficacy between glucosamine sulfate capsules and Huoxue Xiaozhong recipe in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, as well as their effects on knee joint function recovery. A total of 128 patients with knee osteoarthritis who met the criteria were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into a glucosamine sulfate group (n = 64) and a traditional Chinese medicine group (n = 64). The total effective rate, visual analogue score (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), degree of joint swelling, range of motion (ROM), serum inflammatory factor levels, degree of articular cartilage wear, knee joint function recovery and adverse reactions were observed from multiple dimensions. In this study, independent sample t-test and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to statistically evaluate the data. The results showed that the traditional Chinese medicine group had significant advantages in total effective rate, improvement of WOMAC score, relief of joint swelling, improvement of ROM, control of articular cartilage wear and knee joint function recovery; the glucosamine sulfate group performed outstandingly in reducing VAS scores and regulating serum inflammatory factor levels and the incidence of adverse reactions in the traditional Chinese medicine group was lower. In summary, for patients who urgently need to relieve pain, glucosamine sulfate capsules can be used as an initial option; while for patients who hope to comprehensively improve joint function, the blood circulation and swelling reduction formula is more valuable.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".