Colchicine is an effective therapeutic agent in erosive hand osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: The efficacy of colchicine has been assessed in hand osteoarthritis; however, no studies have investigated its use in the more severe subtype of hand osteoarthritis, known as erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA). This retrospective cohort study investigated whether colchicine therapy could provide symptomatic relief and improve inflammation markers in patients with EHOA. Methods: The study included a total of 43 EHOA patients using colchicine (2×0.5 mg) + paracetamol (3×500 mg) daily (colchicine group) and 43 EHOA patients using only paracetamol (3×500 mg) (standard therapy group). Both groups were evaluated for various parameters. Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, and other sociodemographic variables. The decreases in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels from baseline were significantly greater in the colchicine group (P<0.001). Additionally, the visual analog scale (VAS) and Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) scores, which include pain, stiffness, function, and total score, were significantly better in the colchicine group at 3 months compared to the standard therapy group (P<0.001). Furthermore, although both groups showed significant improvements in these parameters, the amount of improvement was significantly greater in the colchicine group (P<0.001). Conclusion: The combined use of colchicine and paracetamol improved CRP and ESR levels, VAS score, and all AUSCAN scores in patients with EHOA. Moreover, these benefits were significantly greater than standard therapy with paracetamol alone. Colchicine appears to be an effective therapeutic agent in the treatment of EHOA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".