MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234776449 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-63542/v1

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

2020· preprint· en· W4234776449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V V Fateeva, Nataliia U. Lashch, П Р Камчатнов, Т. Н. Федорова, О. А. Музычук, Kristina K. Khacheva, Н. В. Пизова, Alexander U. Malygin, О. А. Shavlovskaya, Kseniya V. Nikulina, Аlbert V. Abrosimov, Yulia A. Gerasimova, Konstantin S. Glushkov, А. В. Лебедева

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMedicineClinical trialOxidative stressInternal medicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentPhysical therapyCognitionPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To determine if Divaza was safe and effective for the correction of oxidative disturbances and to stabilize cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis. Study design: 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial in parallel groups. Setting: 10 clinical centers across the Russian Federation. Interventions: Patients were randomized into two groups and instructed to take either 2 tablets of the study drug or 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 laboratory indicators of oxidative stress were analyzed at 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 placebo (n=59). 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 versus 6.4±16.9 [6.9±16.7] seconds in the placebo group (p=0.007 [p=0.0107]). In addition, a recovery of cognitive impairment was observed in all patients of the Divaza group at the end of treatment; this was significantly better when compared with the placebo group (100 [100] % versus 89.5 [89.1] %, respectively, p=0.0272 [p=0.0128]). The treatment was safe, well-tolerated, and had a high compliance rate. Conclusions: Divaza is a safe and effective therapeutic option for attenuating oxidative stress and recovery of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03485495, of April 02, 2018.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207