Comparison of the COX‐inhibiting nitric oxide donator AZD3582 and rofecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZD3582 with that of rofecoxib, naproxen, and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, and to define the dosage of AZD3582 (125 mg, 375 mg, and 750 mg twice a day) that is noninferior in efficacy to rofecoxib. METHODS: A double-blind study of 672 patients with OA of the knee was conducted. Patients who experienced increased pain on withdrawal of analgesia were randomized to receive AZD3582 125 mg, 375 mg, or 750 mg twice a day; rofecoxib 25 mg once a day; naproxen 500 mg twice a day; or placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety were monitored throughout the study. The primary variable was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale from baseline to the mean of weeks 4 and 6, comparing AZD3582 with placebo for superiority and with rofecoxib for noninferiority using a predefined margin of 10 mm. RESULTS: For the primary variable, AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg were superior to placebo (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] -12 mm [-18, -6], P < 0.001 and -13 mm [-19, -7], P < 0.001, respectively) and were noninferior to rofecoxib (-2 mm [-8, 4], P < 0.001 and -3 mm [-9, 3], P < 0.001, respectively). AZD3582 125 mg was not significantly different from placebo for the primary variable. CONCLUSION: AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg twice a day were superior to placebo and as effective as rofecoxib 25 mg/day in treating the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. AZD3582 125 mg twice a day was not statistically different from placebo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".