MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415484360 · doi:10.2337/figshare.30229558

<b>Effectiveness of Vitamin B1-6-12 Supplementation Compared With Vitamin B12 and Gabapentin in Patients With Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy</b>

2025· article· W4415484360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nattawat Poolsawatkitikool

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological and metabolic disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGabapentinPeripheral neuropathyVitamin B12Diabetes mellitusPeripheralVitaminRandomized controlled trialDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p dir="ltr">The use of gabapentin, a first-line drug for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), is limited by its side effects, leading to more frequent use of vitamin B as an alternative. This randomized controlled trial of 237 patients with diabetes and at least probable DPN assessed pain outcomes using the Revised Thai Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, Present Pain Intensity, and Monofilament risk score at baseline and 4 and 12 weeks. Gabapentin showed superior improvement across all measures compared with vitamin B1-6-12 and B12, supporting its role as first-line therapy. However, vitamin B1-6-12 remains a cost-effective alternative with lower side effect, warranting further economic evaluation.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological and metabolic disordersFrench-language works237,207