A dose‐ranging, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of alosetron in patients with functional dyspepsia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it