An enriched-enrolment, randomized withdrawal, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel assignment efficacy study of nabilone as adjuvant in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabinoids are emerging as potential options for neuropathic pain treatment. This study evaluated an oral cannabinoid, nabilone, in the treatment of refractory human diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPN). We performed a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study with an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal design. DPN subjects with a pain score ≥ 4 (0-10 scale) continued regular pain medications and were administered single-blinded adjuvant nabilone for 4 weeks. Subjects achieving ≥ 30% pain relief (26/37) were then randomized and treated with either flexible-dose nabilone 1-4 mg/day (n=13) or placebo (n=13) in a further 5-week double-blind treatment period, with 30% (11/37) of subjects deemed run-in-phase nabilone nonresponders. For nabilone run-in-phase responders, there was an improvement in the change in mean end-point neuropathic pain vs placebo (mean treatment reduction of 1.27; 95% confidence interval 2.29-0.25, P=0.02), with an average nabilone dose at end point of 2.9 ± 1.1mg/day, and improvements from baseline for the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Medical Outcomes Study sleep scale problems index, and the European Quality of Life-5-Domains index score (each P<0.05). Nabilone run-in-phase responders reported greater global end-point improvement with nabilone than with placebo (100% vs 31%; P<0.05). Medication-related confusion led to discontinuation in 2/37 subjects during single-blind nabilone treatment. Potential unmasking occurred in 62% of both groups. Flexible-dose nabilone 1-4 mg/day was effective in relieving DPN symptoms, improving disturbed sleep, quality of life, and overall patient status. Nabilone was well tolerated and successful as adjuvant in patients with DPN.
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 | 0.032 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".