Adjunctive rosiglitazone treatment for severe pediatric malaria: A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Mozambican children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rosiglitazone treatment would reduce levels of circulating angiopoietin-2 (Angpt-2) and improve outcomes of Mozambican children with severe malaria. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of rosiglitazone vs placebo as adjunctive treatment to artesunate in children with severe malaria was conducted. A 0.045 mg/kg/dose of rosiglitazone or matching placebo were administered, in addition to standard of malaria care, twice a day for 4 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of decline of Angpt-2 over 96 hours. Secondary outcomes included the longitudinal dynamics of angiopoietin-1 (Angpt-1) and the Angpt-2/Angpt-1 ratio over 96 hours, parasite clearance kinetics, clinical outcomes, and safety metrics. RESULTS: Overall, 180 children were enrolled; 91 were assigned to rosiglitazone and 89 to placebo. Children who received rosiglitazone had a steeper rate of decline of Angpt-2 over the first 96 hours of hospitalization compared to children who received placebo; however, the trend was not significant (P = 0.28). A similar non-significant trend was observed for Angpt-1 (P = 0.65) and the Angpt-2/Angpt-1 ratio (P = 0.34). All other secondary and safety outcomes were similar between groups (P >0.05). CONCLUSION: Adjunctive rosiglitazone at this dosage was safe and well tolerated but did not significantly affect the longitudinal kinetics of circulating Angpt-2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".