Phase I/II parallel double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial of perispinal etanercept for chronic stroke: improved mobility and pain alleviation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Previous open-label studies showed that chronic post-stroke pain could be abated by treatment with perispinal etanercept, although these benefits were questioned. A randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial was conducted to test perispinal etanercept for chronic post-stroke pain.Research design and methods Participants received two treatments, either perispinal etanercept (active) or saline (control). Primary outcomes were the differences in daily pain levels between groups analyzed by SPSS.Results On the 0–100 points visual analog scale, perispinal etanercept reduced mean levels for worst and average daily pain from baseline after two treatments by 19.5 – 24 points (p < 0.05), and pain alleviation was maintained in the etanercept group, with no significant change in the control group. Thirty percent of etanercept participants had near complete pain abatement after first treatment. Goniometry of the paretic arm showed improved mean shoulder rotation by 55 degrees in active forward flexion for the etanercept group (p = 0.003) only.Conclusions Perispinal etanercept can provide significant and ongoing benefits for the chronic post-stroke management of pain and greater shoulder flexion by the paretic arm. Effects are rapid and highly significant, supporting direct action on brain function.Trial registration ACTRN12615001377527 and Universal Trial Number U1111-1174-3242.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".