Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this double-blind placebo controlled multicenter study was to prove the efficacy of mexiletine in painful diabetic neuropathy. Treatment was provided for in three dosages. For pain measurements a visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill's verbal rating scale were chosen. 95 patients were included. A global assessment of the VAS showed no differences in treatment. The total evaluation (PRIT = Pain Rating Index Total) of the McGill scale just failed the level of significance. More specific exploratory evaluation of subclasses of the McGill scale, representing different qualities of pain, gave remarkable differences between mexiletine and placebo. According to types of complaints an evaluation showed substantial advantages of the mexiletine treatment with both the VAS and the McGill scale. There is strong evidence that particularly patients with stabbing or burning pain, heat sensations or formication will benefit most by mexiletine therapy. Concerning the dosage, a medium regimen of 450 mg per day seems to be appropriate in this indication. With an increase in dosage the efficacy does not rise proportionally. Mexiletine proved a very safe therapy with negligible side effects at the medium dose range, even less than placebo. There were no cardiovascular side effects. Further investigations should pay more attention to the variety of the complaints and include the quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".