Safety and efficacy of ranirestat in patients with mild‐to‐moderate diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the efficacy and safety of ranirestat in patients with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). Patients (18-75 years) with stable type 1/2 diabetes mellitus and DSPN were eligible for this global, double-blind, phase II/III study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00927914). Patients (n = 800) were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to placebo, ranirestat 40 mg/day or 80 mg/day (265 : 264 : 271). Change in peroneal motor nerve conduction velocity (PMNCV) from baseline to 24 months was the primary endpoint with a goal improvement vs. placebo ≥1.2 m/s. Other endpoints included symptoms, quality-of-life, and safety. Six hundred thirty-three patients completed the study. The PMNCV difference from placebo was significant at 6, 12, and 18 months in both ranirestat groups, but <1.2 m/s. The mean improvement from baseline at 24 months was +0.49, +0.95, and +0.90 m/s for placebo, ranirestat 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively (NS). The treatment difference vs. placebo reached significance when ranirestat groups were combined in a post hoc analysis (+0.44 m/s; p = 0.0237). There was no effect of ranirestat on safety assessments, secondary or exploratory endpoints vs. placebo. Ranirestat was well tolerated and improved PMNCV, but did not achieve any efficacy endpoints. The absence of PMNCV worsening in the placebo group underscores the challenges of DSPN studies in patients with well-controlled diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".