Cerebral mechanism of celecoxib for treating knee pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled parallel trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Celecoxib is frequently prescribed to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA), but how celecoxib influences the activity of the central nervous system to alleviate chronic pain remains unclear. METHODS: One hundred eight patients with KOA will be enrolled in this study. Patients will be allocated randomly to three groups: the celecoxib group, the placebo group, and the waiting list group. The patients in the celecoxib group will orally take celecoxib 200 mg once daily and the patients in placebo group with placebo 200 mg every day for 2 weeks. Functional magnetic resonance imaging scan will be performed on all patients at baseline and the end of interventions to detect the cerebral activity changes. The short form of McGill pain questionnaire and the Visual Analog Scale will be used as the primary endpoints to evaluate the improvement of knee pain. The secondary endpoints include the Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), the Attention Test Scale, the Pain Assessment of Sphygmomanometer, the Self-rating Anxiety Scale, the Self-rating Depression Scale, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). DISCUSSION: The results will investigate the influence of celecoxib treatment on cerebral activity of patients with KOA and the possible relationship between the cerebral activity changes and improvement of clinical variables so as to explore the central mechanism of celecoxib in treating knee pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR-IOR-17012365 . Registered on August 14, 2017.
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 | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".