A double‐blind study on clonazepam in patients with burning mouth syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: In the treatment of burning mouth syndrome (BMS), various approaches have been tried with equivocal results. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to determine the efficacy of clonazepam, a GABA agonist designed as an antiepileptic drug that exerts the typical effects of benzodiazepines. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty patients with idiopathic BMS were carefully selected. Clonazepam (0.5 mg/day, n = 10) or placebo (lactose, n = 10) were randomly assigned to the patients. RESULTS: Patients on clonazepam significantly improved in pain ratings (P < .001). These changes were less pronounced in the placebo group (P < .11). No significant changes were observed in a mood scale (P = .56) or for depression scores (P = .56). Taste test and salivary flow increased over sessions, but were not different between groups (P = .83 and P = .06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clonazepam appears to have a positive effect on pain in BMS 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".