MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413166776 · doi:10.1177/09731296251363219

A Randomized Double-blinded Placebo-controlled Study to Determine the Efficacy of Rhuleave-K on Subjects with Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritis

2025· article· en· W4413166776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacognosy Magazine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisDouble blindedPlaceboMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disorder characterized by pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility, impacting the quality of life. Extracts from turmeric (Curcuma longa) and Boswellia (Boswellia serrata) have shown significant anti-inflammatory effects. Rhuleave-K has been formulated as a natural combination of turmeric extract, Boswellia extract in sesame oil using Speed Technology. Objectives The present clinical investigation assessed the efficacy and safety profile of Rhuleave-K in comparison to a placebo, among subjects with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled 100 subjects with mild to moderate OA symptoms (Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grade 2–3) and pain intensity >5 on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Participants were administered either 500 mg of Rhuleave-K soft gel capsules (turmeric extract, Boswellia extract, and sesame oil as key components) as a test product or a matching placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at the end of the study. The secondary outcomes included Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) battery tests and NRS scores. Data were recorded at baseline and on day 5, week 6, and week 12. Safety assessments, including blood biochemistry and vital signs, were performed at baseline and week 6 and week 12. Results The test group showed a significant improvement in the total WOMAC score of 55% ( p < .001), whereas there was a negligible change (0.72%) in the placebo group. The WOMAC pain reduction was 75% ( p < .001), WOMAC stiffness was 67% ( p < .001), and WOMAC functional limitation was 48% ( p < .001) from baseline. There were significant improvements in the OARSI battery of tests, such as the 40 m fast-paced walk by 10%, nine-step stair negotiation (9SSN) by 1%, 30 s chair stand test by 34%, timed up and go test by 18%, and 6 min walk test by 8% from baseline. The range of motion, as measured by goniometry, showed significant improvement (mean difference 2.06° ± 1.24°, p < .001) in flexion, whereas there was no change in the placebo group. C-reactive protein (CRP) showed a clinically significant 77% decrease, and complete blood count (CBC), liver function test (LFT), and renal function test (RFT) showed statistical significance, but no clinically significant changes, and no adverse events were evident in either the test or the placebo group during the study period. The treatments were well tolerated in the present study. Conclusion Rhuleave-K, at a daily dose of 500 mg for 12 weeks, significantly decreased pain, joint stiffness, difficulty in physical function, and mobility associated with mild-to-moderate OA compared with placebo. The improvement was observed as early as 6 weeks and can be a safe and suitable addition to the current management of OA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacognosy MagazineSame topicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207