Time to first and sustained improvement in WOMAC domains among patients with osteoarthritis receiving tanezumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess onset of effect in three placebo- or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-controlled trials of tanezumab in patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis. Methods: Post-hoc nonparametric Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate median time to first improvement and to sustained improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index domain (Pain, Physical Function, Stiffness) scores across a range of improvement thresholds (0-100%, in 5% increments). Time to first improvement was defined as the first week scores met the pre-specified threshold. Time to sustained improvement was defined as the first week scores met the pre-specified threshold and were sustained (on average) for the remainder of the treatment period. Results: Across all domains, tanezumab-treated patients had shorter median times to first improvement (at most thresholds) and reached higher levels of improvement than placebo-treated patients. No substantial differences were observed between tanezumab doses (2.5 and 5 mg), or between tanezumab and NSAIDs. Most patients experiencing an event of first improvement went on to experience a sustained event. At low thresholds, sustained improvement occurred simultaneously with, or shortly after, first improvement. At higher thresholds, median time to sustained improvement was longer than median time to first improvement. Conclusions: Following initiation of tanezumab treatment, first improvement of osteoarthritis symptoms of 30% was evident within 2-4 weeks and sustained improvement was evident within 2-8 weeks. Time to improvement of 50% was more variable, with first and sustained events expected within 4-16 and 8-24 weeks, respectively. ClinicalTrialsgov identifiers: NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".