MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4294561089 · doi:10.1101/2022.09.02.22279531

Neurodoron® in patients with neurasthenia – A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

2022· preprint· en· W4294561089 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dirk H. Hellhammer, Luitgard Spitznagel-Schminke, Cristina Semaca, Rebecca Hufnagel

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEmovi
KeywordsIrritabilityNeurastheniaPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMedicinePopulationAdverse effectClinical trialPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicinePediatricsAnxietyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 Abstract Introduction The term neurasthenia has been introduced in the late 19th century. Stress was indicated as one of the main triggers. Many treatment options are available to reduce the associated symptoms. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used due to its long tradition and positive safety profile. This Phase IV placebo-controlled clinical trial was designed to demonstrate efficacy and safety of the CAM-product Neurodoron® in patients with neurasthenia. Methods This monocentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted in a dedicated outpatient German trial site. Women and men aged 18 and above were randomized to receive either Neurodoron® or matching placebo if they reported typical symptoms of neurasthenia and a severe psychiatric disorder could be excluded. The primary objectives were a reduction in characteristic symptoms of nervous exhaustion and perceived stress as well as improvement in general health status after 6 weeks of treatment. Results 204 patients underwent screening, 78 were randomized in each treatment group, and 77 patients each received treatment (intention-to-treat (ITT) population = 154 patients). For none of the primary efficacy variables, an advantage in favor of Neurodoron® could be demonstrated in the pre-specified analysis (p-values between 0.505 to 0.773, Student’s t-test). In a post-hoc analysis of intra-individual differences after 6 weeks treatment, a significant advantage of Neurodoron® vs. placebo was shown for characteristic symptoms of nervous exhaustion (irritability (p = 0.020); nervousness (p = 0.045), Student’s t-test). Adverse Event (AE) rates were similar between treatment groups, in both groups 6 AEs were assessed as causally related to treatment (severity mild or moderate). No AE resulted in discontinuation of treatment. Conclusion A significant improvement of neurasthenia was seen for the total study population at the end of the treatment period. Superiority of Neurodoron® vs. placebo could not be demonstrated with the pre-specified analysis. However, the post-hoc analysis suggests Neurodoron® as a beneficial option over placebo for the treatment of neurasthenia, especially given its confirmed markedly good safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDiet and metabolism studies→French-language works237,207→