Evaluation of efficiency and safety of adding neuromultivit to basic therapy of vertebrogenic radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of neuromultivit (valiant, Russia) as add-on to the basic therapy of vertebrogenic radiculopathy (VR) L5-S1. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The open clinical trial included 100 patients with VR L5-S1 randomized into 2 groups. In group 1, patients received neuromultivit and basic therapy; in group 2 only basic therapy. Treatment efficacy was assessed by the dynamics of regression of pain intensity on the visual analogue scale (VAS), McGill pain questionnaire (MGPQ), Aberdeen back pain scale (ABPS), the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), the dynamics of neurologic symptoms, the need for additional treatment with NSAID. Safety was assessed by evaluation of vital functions, laboratory tests, ECG, registration of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: In both groups, a significant positive changes on VAS, MGPQ, ABPS, QBPDS were observed. Nevertheless, the positive effect of therapy was more pronounced in group 1 p<0.05). The AE spectrum between two groups did not differ significantly (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Addition of neuromultivit to basic therapy increased the efficacy of treatment of VR L5-S1.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".