Effects of orally administered cetylated fatty acids on symptoms and functional capacity in patients with knee osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The development and implementation of new treatments for knee osteoarthritis in routine practice remains an unmet need. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a Cetylated Fatty Acids (CFA)-based dietary supplement in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), a prevalent and difficult-to-treat condition. SUBJECTS/METHODS: 60 patients (mean age: 66.0 ± 7.7 years, 85% female) with grade 3-4 knee osteoarthritis and a pain intensity of > 4 cm on the visual analog scale (VAS) were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 1.5 g of oral CFA or a placebo for 60 days. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity (VAS), secondary outcomes included changes in range of motion (ROM), in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the safety profile of the food supplement. RESULTS: After 60 days of CFA assumption, the mean reduction in pain intensity (VAS) was -1.7 cm (95% CI [-2.0, -1.4]), showing a statistically significant difference compared to placebo (-0.6 cm, 95% CI [-1.0, -0.2]; p < 0.005). The mean decrease in the WOMAC total score was also greater in the CFA group (-19.5 vs. -15.8), although the placebo-corrected effect was not statistically significant (-3.7, 95% CI [-8.3, 0.8]; p = 0.108). Observed improvements in flexion (3.8° [95% CI: 2.6, 5.0]) and external rotation (2.9° [95% CI: 2.1, 3.8]) were both statistically significant in favor of CFA (p ≤ 0.001) compared to placebo. Differences in extension and internal rotation were negligible. The safety profile of the investigational product resulted favorable, considering that only 4 out of 30 patients reported mild adverse events, and none withdrawn from the study due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients with knee osteoarthritis, incorporating a CFA oral supplement into the treatment regimen provides superior efficacy in pain relief and range of motion improvement compared to placebo, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".