Efficacy and safety of valdecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled comparison with placebo and naproxen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To compare the efficacy of the COX‐2 specific inhibitor valdecoxib with the conventional NSAID naproxen and placebo in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. This multi‐centre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of valdecoxib 10 mg (n=209), 20 mg (n=212) or 40 mg once daily (q.d.) (n=221) with naproxen 500 mg b.i.d. (n=226) or placebo (n=222), in treating the signs and symptoms of RA. Efficacy was assessed by the number of patients responding to treatment according to the American College of Rheumatology‐Responder Index (ACR‐20). Results. ACR‐20 response was recorded for all randomized patients who received a single dose of study medication (above). Valdecoxib, at all administered doses, produced significant improvements in the ACR‐20 Responder Index at weeks 2, 6 and 12 compared with placebo (P≤0.01). Valdecoxib and naproxen did not differ in terms of ACR‐20 response rate and the three doses of valdecoxib were similar to one another. All three doses of valdecoxib were well tolerated. Conclusions. Single daily doses of valdecoxib 10, 20 and 40 mg demonstrated efficacy that was superior to placebo and similar to naproxen in treating the signs and symptoms of RA. All three doses provided similar levels of efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".