MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399139553 · doi:10.1177/09727531241243126

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of First-line Drugs Used in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy Among Elderly Population—A Randomised, Open-label, Active Comparator Study

2024· article· en· W4399139553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahesh Kumar Balasundaram, Pankaj Kumar Kannauje, Suryaprakash Dhaneria, Alok Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurosciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyOpen labelPopulationInternal medicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Peripheral neuropathy is four times more common in geriatric age group patients compared to younger ones. Most of the trials have targeted adult population, and there is scarcity of data in the geriatric age group. Purpose A real-world study was planned on geriatric patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line drugs used in the management of peripheral neuropathy. Methods It was a randomised, open-label, active comparator clinical trial in which first-line drugs for peripheral neuropathy were compared [amitriptyline (10 mg), duloxetine (30 mg), gabapentin (300 mg), pregabalin (75 mg)] for their effectiveness and safety. The trial duration was eight weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used for effectiveness. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Multiple groups were compared with Kruskal–Wallis test, and post hoc analysis was performed with Dunn’s test. A p value <.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 80 patients were recruited (20 patients in each arm) with a mean age of 65.4 years, and 56.3% were male. Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline ( p = .04) and duloxetine ( p = .02) in reducing mTCNS. Similarly, pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline ( p = .041 and duloxetine ( p = .009) in reducing GDS score. All drugs were comparable in reducing VRS ( p = .17). A total of 14 adverse events were observed, out of which constipation, sedation and dizziness were common. Maximum adverse events were observed in the duloxetine arm (6/14). Conclusion Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline and duloxetine, whereas it was comparable to gabapentin in effectiveness. Constipation was the most common adverse event, but the central nervous system was the most involved in adverse events.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNon-randomized 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurosciencesSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207