The effect of the sizes of alkali cations on structural variations in layered silicate materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this 13-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and positive-internal (celecoxib)-controlled, parallel-group study was to demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lumiracoxib in primary hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Eligible patients (n = 1,262; ACR criteria) were randomized (1:1:1) to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (o.d.) (n = 427), celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 419), or matching placebo o.d. (n = 416) administered orally. The primary objective was to compare lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. and placebo with respect to three co-primary efficacy variables: the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Likert version 3.1 (WOMAC™ LK 3.1) questionnaire, the function subscale of the WOMAC™ LK 3.1 questionnaire, and patient's global assessment of disease activity (100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)) after 13 weeks of treatment. Of the 1,262 randomized patients, 951 completed the study. All randomized patients were included in the intention-to-treat and safety populations. Lumiracoxib was superior to the placebo (p < 0.001) after 13 weeks for all three co-primary endpoints. By week 13, the patient's global assessment of disease activity (100-mm VAS) improved by 23.3 mm (±SD, 27.83 mm) with lumiracoxib and 13.3 mm (±26.71 mm) with placebo. The WOMAC™ function score decreased by 10.4 (±13.56) with lumiracoxib and 6.8 (±12.55) with placebo. The WOMAC™ pain scores decreased by 3.4 (±4.16) with lumiracoxib and 2.2 (±3.94) with placebo at week 13. Similar results were observed for secondary endpoints: OA pain intensity and WOMAC™ total score. Lumiracoxib was similar to celecoxib for all three co-primary endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, lumiracoxib is effective in reducing pain and improving function in hip OA patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".