Serum lysophosphatidylcholines to phosphatidylcholines ratio is associated with symptomatic responders to symptomatic drugs in knee osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of the optimal treatment for a given patient is of paramount importance. This is of particular relevance in osteoarthritis (OA) because of the high prevalence of the disease, extensive heterogeneity of the disease, and need for long-term treatment. The aim of the study was to examine whether serum lysophosphatidylcholines (lysoPCs) to phosphatidylcholines (PCs) ratio can predict clinical response to licofelone and naproxen treatments in symptomatic knee OA patients. METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight OA patients who completed the study according to protocol (ATP) of a previous 24-month clinical trial cohort comparing the effect of licofelone vs. naproxen in symptomatic knee OA patients were included. Symptomatic responses to either treatments were classified according to the OARSI-OMERACT criteria based on the WOMAC scores at 24 months. Total concentrations of PCs and lysoPCs were measured in the serum samples collected before the initiation of the treatments, and the lysoPCs to PCs ratio was calculated. Student's t test was utilized to compare the difference in the ratio of lysoPCs to PCs between the symptomatic responders and non-responders. Logistic regression was utilized to adjust for the potential confounders. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to identify the optimal cutoff of the ratio for prediction. RESULTS: Data showed that 61.4% of the patients symptomatically responded to licofelone and naproxen and 38.6% were deemed as therapeutic failures (non-responders). There was no difference in responders between licofelone and naproxen (p = 0.87). Responders had a significantly higher lysoPCs to PCs ratio than non-responders (0.097 ± 0.003 vs. 0.085 ± 0.003; p = 0.006). Patients with a ratio greater than the optimal cutoff of 0.088 had 2.93 times more likely to respond to licofelone and naproxen (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Serum lysoPCs to PCs ratio is a marker for response to licofelone and naproxen and may aid in the personalized treatment to knee OA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".