Efficacy of Bi Qi Capsules in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is known that Bi Qi Capsules (BQC) have synergistic effects when combined with Methotrexate, but there is a lack of clinical studies on the long-term efficacy and safety of the combination of the 2 in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of this treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, single-simulation, randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of BQC in combination with Methotrexate in the treatment of RA, and was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the hospital. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the observation or control group and were respectively followed up for 6 months after receiving 12 weeks of treatment. The observation indexes included: total effective rate, DAS-28 score, inflammatory indexes, and adverse reactions. Finally, the collected data was statistically analyzed by SPSS version 18.0. DISCUSSION: This study evaluated the long-term efficacy of BQC in combination with Methotrexate in the treatment of RA. The trial results of this study will provide new ideas for choosing a combination of Chinese and Western medicine protocols for the treatment of RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/U85GX.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".