Comparison of low-dose rofecoxib versus 1000 mg naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily to naproxen 500 mg twice daily in patients > or = 40 years of age with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHOD: Two identical 6-week, randomized, double-blind studies were conducted (1 in Africa, Australia, Europe, Canada, Mexico, & South America; 1 in Asia). Primary endpoints were pain walking on a flat surface, patient global assessment of response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status. RESULTS: Overall, 944 patients participated. For all efficacy endpoints, treatment effects for rofecoxib and naproxen were comparable and seen at the first measures of efficacy. Both compounds were generally well-tolerated, with an improved gastrointestinal safety profile for rofecoxib versus naproxen. CONCLUSIONS In these studies, rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (the lowest indicated dose) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily showed similar treatment effects in OA patients. Rofecoxib and naproxen were generally well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".