MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989618508 · doi:10.1002/mus.20437

Randomized controlled trial of modafinil for the treatment of fatigue in postpolio patients

2005· article· en· W1989618508 on OpenAlexaff
K. Ming Chan, Fay J. Strohschein, David Rydz, Amyn Allidina, Ashfaq Shuaib, Chris Westbury

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModafinilMedicinePlaceboEpworth Sleepiness ScaleRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to test whether modafinil is effective in alleviating the symptoms of fatigue in postpolio patients, because it has been helpful for such symptoms in other neurologic disorders. Using a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over design, 14 postpolio patients with moderate to severe fatigue were assigned to receive modafinil or placebo first. Piper Fatigue Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, digit span, and reaction time tests were done at baseline and then at weekly intervals. The Piper Fatigue Scale scores improved by 27 +/- 40% (mean +/- SD) following modafinil and by 43 +/- 36% following placebo. Scores for most of the other tests did not change during the study. Therefore, we conclude that modafinil was not effective in alleviating the symptoms of fatigue in postpolio patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207