Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with interest the Letter to the Editor titled “Can Colchicine as an Old Anti-Inflammatory Agent Be Effective in COVID-19?” by Nasiripour et al.,1 in which the authors stated that only 1 phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study has been assigned to clinicaltrials.gov by the Montreal Heart Institute to investigate the efficacy and safety of colchicine in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19.2 In Argentina, we started COLCOVID Trial to test the effects of colchicine on moderate-/high-risk hospitalized COVID-19 patients with the aim of reducing mortality. This study is a phase 3 multicenter, controlled trial; our protocol was published in ClinicalTrial.gov on March 31, 2020.3 Therefore, we would like to affirm that, besides the COLCORONA Trial, there is another study ongoing focused on colchicine in COVID-19. We appreciate the opportunity to express our comment following the recent publication of the potential role of colchicine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pablo Corral reports honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and PTC; research grants from Amgen and Genzyme, and personal fees for consultancy from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. Rafael Diaz reports research grants from Sanofi, DalCor, Population Health Research Institute, Duke Clinical Research Institute, the TIMI group, Amgen, Cirius, Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Center, and Lepetit and personal fees from Amgen and Cirius.
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 | 0.007 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".