MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406113320 · doi:10.1111/1753-0407.70045

<scp>TangBi</scp> Formula for Painful Diabetic Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled and Parallel‐Group Trial

2025· article· en· W4406113320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xuefei Zhao, Xuedong An, Yashan Cui, Dong Liu, Zhaohui Fang, Zhonghua Zheng, Xinhe Zuo, Huailin Gao, Tianshu Gao, Qing Ni, Fengmei Lian, Xiaolin Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboDouble blindDiabetes mellitusPlacebo groupRandomized controlled trialPolyneuropathyMulticenter studyMulticenter trialInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgeryEndocrinologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of herbal medicines combined with conventional treatment is more effective than conventional medication alone in improving clinical symptoms in patients with diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSPN). METHODS: This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial recruited patients from 6 clinical centers in mainland China. A total of 188 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the treatment group (Tangbi Formula plus methylcobalamin) and the control group (placebo plus methylcobalamin). Subjects were reassessed after the 24-week intervention. The primary outcomes were differences in changes in clinical signs and symptoms and changes in the Michigan Diabetic Neuropathy Score (MDNS) between the two groups before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in nerve conduction velocity (NCV) and single clinical signs and symptoms as measured by the visual-analogue scale (VAS) and Toronto clinical scoring system (TCSS). RESULTS: Compared with the placebo group, after 24 weeks of treatment, the MDNS score of TangBi Formula group was significantly reduced (p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in NCV results in either group before or after treatment. Compared with baseline, the difference in the change value of VAS score between the two groups after treatment was statistically significant (p = 0.031). A statistically significant difference in the change value of TCSS after treatment compared to baseline was found between the two groups (p = 0.033 at 12 weeks and p = 0.030 at 24 weeks). No severe adverse events due to study participation or study intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This trial demonstrated that combining Tangbi Formula with basal therapy can be safer and more effective in improving the symptoms of DSPN patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DiabetesSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207