MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139940918 · doi:10.1159/000515233

Efficacy and Safety of Divaza for the Correction of Oxidative Disturbances in Patients with Cerebral Atherosclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3139940918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nataliia U. Lashch, П Р Камчатнов, Т. Н. Федорова, О. А. Музычук, Kristina K. Khacheva, Н. В. Пизова, Alexander U. Malygin, О. А. Shavlovskaya, V V Fateeva, Kseniya V. Nikulina, А.В. Абросимов, Yulia A. Gerasimova, Konstantin S. Glushkov, А. В. Лебедева

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialNootropicInternal medicineOxidative stressClinical trialGastroenterologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if Divaza, a drug with nootropic and antioxidant effects, was safe and effective for the correction of oxidative disturbances and to stabilize cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis. STUDY DESIGN: The study design consisted of a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial in parallel groups. SETTING: The setting in which the study was conducted comprised 10 clinical centers across the Russian Federation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups and instructed to take either 2 tablets of the study drug or a placebo 3 times per day in conjunction with basic therapy. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a change in the average endogenous antioxidant potential after the completion of the study. The blood indicators of the oxidative stress (OS) were analyzed at the baseline and then after 12 weeks of therapy using iron-induced chemiluminescence analysis. The Montreal cognitive assessment test was used as a secondary outcome measure to evaluate cognitive impairment at the end of the study. RESULTS: 124 outpatients with a mean age of 60.7 ± 7.6 years were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive Divaza (n = 65) or a placebo (n = 59). An improvement of cognitive function was observed in all patients of the Divaza group at the end of the treatment; this was significantly better than the placebo group (100 [100] vs. 89.5 [89.1]%, respectively, p = 0.0272 [p = 0.0128]). The administration of Divaza restored the activity of the endogenous antioxidant system. The change in the average level of lipoprotein resistance to oxidation after 12 weeks of therapy, compared to the baseline, was significantly higher in the Divaza group (14.8 ± 14.7 [14.8 ± 14.7] seconds latent period vs. 6.4 ± 16.9 [6.9 ± 16.7] seconds in the placebo group (p = 0.007 [p = 0.0107]). CONCLUSIONS: Divaza is a safe and effective therapeutic option for attenuating OS and recovery of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207