Analysis of Gout Remission Definitions in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Colchicine Prophylaxis for People With Gout Initiating Allopurinol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate (1) the effect of colchicine prophylaxis on gout remission when commencing urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and (2) illness perceptions of people in remission using 2 definitions of gout remission. Methods Data from a 12-month double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 200 people with gout commencing allopurinol were analyzed. Participants were randomly assigned to prophylaxis with 0.5 mg daily colchicine or placebo for 6 months, followed by 6 months of additional follow-up. Gout remission was assessed using the 2016 preliminary definition or simplified definition without patient-reported outcomes. Illness perceptions were assessed using a gout-specific version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Results In the first 6 months, few participants were in remission according to either the 2016 preliminary definition (3% for colchicine and 4% for placebo) or the simplified definition (7% for colchicine and 12% for placebo). In the second 6 months, after study drug (colchicine or placebo) discontinuation, fewer participants in the colchicine group than in the placebo group were in remission according to the 2016 preliminary definition (4% vs 14%, P = 0.03), and the simplified definition (14% vs 28%, P = 0.02). Participants fulfilling remission using either definition had more favorable perceptions about their gout symptoms and illness concerns, as well as consequences, when using the simplified definition. Conclusion Using either definition, 6 months of colchicine prophylaxis when initiating ULT does not provide an advantage in the fulfillment of gout remission. People fulfilling either definition report fewer symptoms, less concern about their gout, and, when using the simplified definition, are less affected by gout.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".