Metotrexate comparado a placebo em osteoartrite de joelho
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito de metotrexate em osteoartrite inflamatoria de joelho. Metodos: 60 pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos em um estudo prospectivo duplo-cego, placebo¬controlado, randomizado, com duracao de 4 meses. O grupo 1 recebeu metotrexate na dose de 7,5mg por semana e o grupo 2 recebeu placebo. Foram utilizados como medidas de avaliacao primaria o Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoartrithis Index (WOMAC) o indice algofuncional de Lequesne e a escala visual analogica (EV A) de dor. A quantidade consumida de comprimidos de paracetamol para analgesia serviu como medida de avaliacao secundaria. Resultados: A media de idade dos pacientes foi de 60,4 anos no grupo placebo e de 61,8 anos no grupo Metotrexate, sendo que as mulheres predominaram nos dois grupos com 90 por cento no grupo Metotrexate e 72 por cento no grupo placebo. Nao houve diferenca estatistica significante entre os grupos em relacao ao WOMAC, Lequesne e EV A. Quanto ao consumo de paracetamol tambem nao houve diferenca entre os grupos, porem quando empregado a = 0,10, houve consumo maior de analgesico no grupo placebo (0,093). Conclusao: Metotrexate nao trouxe alivio sintomatico nem reduziu limitacao funcional quando comparado ao placebo em osteoarthrite de joelho. Metotrexate pode ter algum efeito na reducao do consumo de analgesicos em osteoartrite de joelho
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".