Comparison of colchicine versus prednisolone in recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A double-blind randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is one of the most common ulcers of the oral cavity with a reported prevalence of 5- 50%. There is still no definitive treatment for RAS; however, immunosuppressive and immunomodulant agents have been proposed. In this study, we compared the therapeutic effects of 5 mg/d prednisolone with 0.5 mg/d colchicine in the treatment of RAS. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 34 patients with RAS were randomly divided into two groups for treatment with prednisolone or colchicine. All patients took the medication for three months and were assessed at two weeks intervals. The groups were compared for size and number of lesions, severity of pain and burning sensation, duration of pain-free episodes and any side effects of the prescribed medicines. Both colchicine and prednisolone treatments significantly reduced RAS (p < 0.001). No significant differences in size and number of lesions, recurrence and severity of pain and duration of pain-free period were seen between the two treatment groups. Colchicine (52.9%) had significantly more side effects than prednisolone (11.8%). CONCLUSION: Low dose prednisolone and colchicine were both effective in treating RAS. Given that the two therapies had similar efficacy, yet colchicine was associated with more side effects, , 5mg/d of prednisolone seems to be a better alternative in reducing the signs and symptoms of the disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".