Naproxen Effects on Brain Response to Painful Pressure Stimulation in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Single-dose Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of naproxen, an antiinflammatory analgesic drug, on brain response to painful stimulation on the affected knee in chronic osteoarthritis (OA) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: A sample of 25 patients with knee OA received naproxen (500 mg), placebo, or no treatment in 3 separate sessions in a randomized manner. Pressure stimulation was applied to the medial articular interline of the knee during the fMRI pain sequence. We evaluated subjective pain ratings at every session and their association with brain responses to pain. An fMRI control paradigm was included to discard global brain vascular effects of naproxen. RESULTS: We found brain activation reductions under naproxen compared to no treatment in different cortical and subcortical core pain processing regions (p≤0.001). Compared to placebo, naproxen triggered an attenuation of amygdala activation (p=0.001). Placebo extended its attenuation effects beyond the classical pain processing network (p≤0.001). Subjective pain scores during the fMRI painful task differed between naproxen and no treatment (p=0.037). Activation attenuation under naproxen in different regions (i.e., ventral brain, cingulate gyrus) was accompanied by an improvement in the subjective pain complaints (p≤0.002). CONCLUSION: Naproxen effectively reduces pain-related brain responses involving different regions and the attenuation is related to subjective pain changes. Our current work yields further support to the utility of fMRI to objectify the acute analgesic effects of a single naproxen dose in patients affected by knee OA. The trial was registered at the EuropeanClinicalTrials Database, "EudraCT Number 2008-004501-33".
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".