Avaliação do uso da hidroxicloroquina no tratamento da osteoartrite sintomática de joelhos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJETIVO: Avaliar o efeito da hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) no tratamento da osteoartrite (OA) sintomática de joelhos. MÉTODOS: Dois grupos de pacientes com diagnóstico de OA sintomática de joelhos foram avaliados em estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo e duplo-cego, o primeiro constituído de 16 pacientes submetidos à terapêutica com HCQ, na dosagem de 400 mg/dia, durante quatro meses e o outro grupo constituído de 13 pacientes recebeu placebo por igual período. Ambos os grupos foram avaliados utilizando o Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), o índice algofuncional de Lequesne e a escala visual analógica (EVA). RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença entre os grupos nas subescalas do WOMAC em relação à dor (Wdor), p = 0,551, rigidez (Wrig), p = 0,512, e função (Wfunção), p = 0,293. Nas escalas EVA e Lequesne também não houve diferença estatisticamente significante com p = 0,461 e p = 0,803, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: Embora os dois grupos tenham apresentado melhora, não houve superioridade no tratamento da OA de joelhos no grupo submetido ao uso de HCQ em relação ao grupo placebo neste estudo.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".