MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133888386 · doi:10.1177/147323000503300102

Efficacy of Lumiracoxib in Osteoarthritis: A Review of Nine Studies

2005· review· en· W2133888386 on OpenAlexaffabout
Françis Berenbaum, Joachim Grifka, Jacques P. Brown, J. Zacher, Alan Moore, Gerhard Krammer, Debadyuti Dutta, VS Sloan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsOsteoporosis Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor in development for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain. We reviewed nine clinical studies of 1-52 weeks' duration demonstrating the efficacy of lumiracoxib in OA. Male and female patients aged > or = 18 years with primary OA of the hand, hip or knee received lumiracoxib, placebo or active comparators (diclofenac, celecoxib or rofecoxib). Lumiracoxib provided consistent reductions in OA pain intensity and improvements in the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status (assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire or the Australian/Canadian OA Hand Index). These results were superior to placebo and similar to the active comparators tested. In addition, lumiracoxib was consistently superior to placebo and generally similar to active comparators in terms of the new Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. These were used to provide a single measure of response to treatment, taking into account pain, the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207