Antidepressant therapy in complex treatment of painful diabetic polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. Comparative efficiency and safety analysis of antidepressant agents from different pharmacological classes (pipofezine and venlafaxine)in combination with carbamazepine for treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy (DP). Materials and methods. We examined 21 male and 27 female patients with painful DP (mean age 54.3?14.2 years; mean duration ofdiabetes mellitus (DM) 8.9?5.1 years; mean duration of DP - 3.8?2.1 years). DP was diagnosed clinically and by electromyographymethod. Pain syndrome was assessed with DN4 questionnaire, visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire. Psycho-vegetative status was evaluated by Spielberger test with reactive and personal anxiety (RA and PA) assessment and Beck depressioninventory. All patients received symptomatic pharmacotherapy with anticonvulsant and antidepressant agent. First group (DP-1)included 23 patients on carbamazepin and pipofezine. Second group (DP-2) included 25 patients on carbamazepin and venlafaxine. Results. Following treatment, pain syndrome was completely compensated in 8.7% of patients from DP-1 group and 12.5% from DP-2.Decrease in pain intensity?50% from initial level was achieved in 73.9% (DP-1) and 75% (DP-2) of cases. Mean pain intensityaccording to VAS reduced from 5.2?2.1 points to 2.3?1.4 points (DP-1) and from 5.8?2.3 points (DP-2) with equal statistical significance(p
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".