Efficacy of Oxcarbazepine in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: This was an open-label, 9-week trial, consisting of a 1-week prospective Screening Phase followed by an 8-week Treatment Phase. Treatment with oxcarbazepine was initiated at 150 mg/day, and the daily dose was doubled on a weekly basis and titrated to tolerability over 4 weeks, up to 1200 mg/day. This was followed by a 4-week fixed-dose Maintenance Phase, during which patients were maintained on oxcarbazepine at 1200 mg/day or highest tolerated dose. The primary efficacy variable was the change in the weekly pain rating assessed on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire between the Screening Phase and the Treatment Phase. All analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in the trial. The mean daily oxcarbazepine dose during the Maintenance Phase was 814 mg. The mean VAS score dropped from 66.3 during the Screening Phase to 34.3 at the end of the trial (P = 0.0001), for a mean reduction of 48.3%. In addition, there were significant improvements in the total pain score and present pain intensity. Oxcarbazepine was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events consisting of drowsiness and dizziness. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that oxcarbazepine administered as monotherapy is an efficacious and safe option for the symptomatic treatment of pain associated with symmetrical diabetic neuropathy. These results will need to be confirmed in large, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".