MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147138310

A Clinical Trial of Nitrosense patch for the treatment of patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

2014· article· en· W2147138310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.P. Agrawal, Sanjay Jain, Sumit Singhal, L. Lindgren, Elisabeth Sthengel

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboVisual analogue scaleNitric oxideAnesthesiaDiabetic neuropathyClinical trialInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Impaired nitric oxide synthesis has been implicated as one of the underlying causes of diabetic painful neuropathy (DPN). Hence, effects of a cutaneous, nitric oxide releasing patch (NitroSense Derma Protect) were evaluated in subjects with DPN. METHODS: Fifty diabetics were randomised to active/placebo arms after a 2 wk wash-out period. Patients received 24 mg patches (each patch releases around 9 nmol/cm2/min of nitric oxide) for 3 hrs, every other day during a 3 wks period, or indistinguishable placebo patches. The extent of pain was recorded at start, at each visit and following completion of the study. Changes in pain from baseline were measured using the 11 point lickert scale (PLS), visual analogue scale (VAS), short form mcgill, pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), present pain intensity (PPI) scale. RESULTS: Subjects treated with patch experienced a statistically significant reduction in pain from baseline when compared to placebo (PLS scale; p = 0.05). Defining responders as subjects with a > 50% reduction in PLS score from baseline, the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated as 3.0. A significant post-treatment decrease (p = 0.009) in vibration perception threshold (VPT) for left foot after active treatment was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Present results highlight utility of NitroSense Derma Protect as controllable nitric oxide source for 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207