Memantine efficacy in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a detrimental side effect of chemotherapeutic agents. If left untreated, CIPN can persist for several years following the chemotherapy. CIPN management may enhance the quality of life of the affected patients. This study evaluated the efficacy of memantine, an antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate, in CIPN management. METHODS: This double-blinded randomised clinical trial was performed on 176 individuals with CIPN. Patients were randomised to either the memantine or placebo groups (88 in each). The memantine group received a single daily dose of 5 mg for the initial 3 days. Subsequently, the dosage was increased to 20 mg per day, with 5 mg increments every 3 days. The placebo group received tablets of equal shape and size. All individuals received medications for 8 weeks. The McGill pain questionnaire and tuning fork test were used to evaluate the severity of neuropathic pain in patients, both at baseline and after the intervention ended. RESULTS: Based on tuning fork test results, significant improvement in neuropathy was observed among patients who received memantine compared with those who received placebo (p<0.001 vs 0.665). McGill pain questionnaire score revealed a significant difference between memantine and placebo groups (p<0.001 for both groups). This difference was also significant after performing intention-to-treat analysis. Moreover, a higher proportion of patients in the memantine group achieved minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSION: The use of memantine mitigated the CIPN intensity. Thus, it appears that memantine is a promising option for the management of patients experiencing CIPN.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".