MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A dose‐ranging, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of alosetron in patients with functional dyspepsia

2001· article· en· W1988306998 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas J. Talley, S. V. VAN ZANTEN, George E. Dukes, T. Perschy, Matthew D. Heath, C. Kleoudis, Allen W. Mangel

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboDose-ranging studyAdverse effectAbdominal painInternal medicineConstipationRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyPostprandialAnesthesiaSurgeryDouble blind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia is characterized by upper abdominal pain or discomfort. AIM: To assess the benefit of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist alosetron in a pilot, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 320 functional dyspepsia patients received placebo (n=81), or alosetron 0.5 mg b.d. (n=77), 1.0 mg b.d. (n=79) or 2.0 mg b.d. (n=83) for 12 weeks, followed by 1 week of follow-up. Primary efficacy was the 12-week average rate of adequate relief of upper abdominal pain or discomfort. Secondary endpoints assessed pain and upper gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: Twelve-week average rates of adequate relief of pain or discomfort were 46% (95% CI: 37-54%), 55% (95% CI: 46-63%), 55% (95% CI: 47-64%) and 47% (95% CI: 38-55%) in the placebo, 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg alosetron groups, respectively. Alosetron 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg showed potential benefit over placebo for early satiety and postprandial fullness. Females showed greater responses compared to males. Patients with adequate relief had significantly (P < 0.001) greater reductions in severity and frequency of functional dyspepsia symptoms than those without adequate relief. Constipation was the most commonly reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Alosetron showed potential benefit in relieving functional dyspepsia symptoms compared to placebo. Patients with adequate relief of upper abdominal pain or discomfort showed improvements in multiple functional dyspepsia symptoms.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations110
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207