Phase 3, 56-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study utilising patient-reported and radiographic outcomes evaluating the efficacy and safety of a lorecivivint injection in patients with moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis: OA-11 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intraarticular (IA) lorecivivint (LOR) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Patients with American College of Rheumatology criteria-defined knee OA, Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grades 2-3, and medial Joint Space Width (JSW) by radiograph between 1.5 and 4 mm in the target knee were enrolled in this phase 3, 56-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive a single IA injection of 0.07 mg LOR or vehicle placebo (PBO) on Day 1. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at Week 12. Additional outcomes included the change from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Function, WOMAC Pain, Patient Global Assessment, medial JSW, and safety. RESULTS: 513 patients were randomised. Baseline mean medial JSW was 2.61 (±0.7) mm. The mean change from baseline in weekly average of daily Pain NRS at Week 12 was LOR -2.24 (± 0.13) compared with PBO -2.49 (± 0.13); p=0.185, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.12, 0.62). No discernable treatment effects of LOR compared with PBO were revealed by the analysis of other endpoints. Neither treatment group showed meaningful medial JSW loss over 52 weeks. Incidences, severity, and relationship to study treatment of AEs were similar between LOR and PBO treatment groups. CONCLUSIOINS: In this study, LOR was well tolerated although it did not meet the primary endpoint of change from baseline in target knee Pain NRS at Week 12.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".