Combined Effects of Turmeric Supplementation and Strengthening Exercises on Knee Pain, Physical Function, and Quality of Life among Knee Osteoarthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Strengthening exercises have been reported to enhance individuals' physical function and quality of life (QoL).Additionally, turmeric supplementation has demonstrated analgesic qualities, which may indirectly improve physical function and QoL.Objectives.This study examines the combined effects of turmeric supplementation and strengthening exercises on knee pain, physical function, and QoL in knee osteoarthritis patients versus knee-strengthening exercises alone.Methods.Thirty-five knee osteoarthritis patients (mean age 59.0 11.4 years) were recruited and randomly assigned to the PE group (n=17) or the TE group (n=18).All participants performed strengthening exercises three times per week for 12 weeks.Participants in group TE took one turmeric supplement daily containing 697 mg/tablet of curcumin for 12 weeks.Measurements were conducted at pre-test, mid-test, and post-test, including anthropometric assessments, the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and the administration of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Malay version.Results.The TE group significantly improved the VAS-pain score, walking distance during the 6MWT, WOMAC scores, and QoL levels for physical, psychological, and social health (p<0.05).However, the prescribed intervention did not significantly affect QoL related to environmental health (p>0.05).Conclusion.Combining turmeric supplementation and strengthening exercises enhanced pain reduction, physical function, and overall quality of life compared to strengthening exercises alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".