Effectiveness of Cucumis sativus L. Supplementation on Mild to Moderate Joint Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Joint pain affects millions worldwide, impairing mobility and quality of life, and is a focus in management and therapy. Preliminary research found that the cucumber extract Cucumis sativus L. is safe and may have joint pain relief effects. Objective: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a standardized powder (>1% idoBR1) of Cucumis sativus L. (Q-actinTM) on pain outcomes in adults with mild to moderate joint pain. Methods: In this Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-compliant, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 80 adults (mean age = 50.10) were randomized to either the Cucumis sativus L. group (CG; 20 mg/d) or the placebo group (PG; rice protein, 20 mg/d) for 60 days. Participants completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne Functional Index, Brief Pain Inventory, and Pain Disability Index at baseline, day 15, day 30, and day 60. Daily assessments of adherence and adverse events were also obtained. Results: Improvements in all the pain outcomes over time for the CG were evidenced, with larger improvements in the CG compared to PG for the WOMAC, Brief Pain Inventory, and Pain Disability Index. Significant improvements in the WOMAC for the CG were evidenced on day 30 and day 60. From baseline to day 60, the CG showed individual percent changes of 31.79%, 10.07%, and 32.39% for the WOMAC, Lequesne Functional Index, and Pain Disability Index, while the PG experienced declines of 14.30%, 9.56%, and 14.96%, respectively, for the same measures. Conclusion: Cucumis sativus L. shows potential as an effective herbal intervention for alleviating joint pain. Further clinical trials involving diverse populations and settings are recommended to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".