The efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the efficacy of pregabalin in patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy. This randomized, controlled, withdrawal trial included five phases: screening (4-18 days); run-in (4-10 days) to screen out placebo responders; single-blind (28 days) to identify pregabalin responders; double-blind to randomize responders to pregabalin or placebo (35 days); and final study medication taper (7 days). The primary endpoint was time to loss of response (LOR) during the double-blind phase (1-point increase in pain, discontinuation, or rescue-medication use). In the single-blind phase, 58% of patients had 30% pain reduction. In the double-blind phase, pregabalin (n=110) and placebo (n=107) groups did not differ significantly in time to LOR. Adverse events caused the discontinuation of 9.9% and 5.6% of pregabalin-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Most patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy responded to pregabalin therapy; however, time to LOR did not significantly differ between pregabalin and placebo. Considering the results of all phases of the study, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from it, suggesting a need for further work to understand the clinical potential of pregabalin treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".