MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rationale for EDSS-Plus, the Primary Composite Endpoint of Disability Progression in the ASCEND Phase 3 Study of Natalizumab for Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Post Hoc Analysis of IMPACT Study Data (P7.240)

2015· article· en· W1526849981 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel D. Mikol, J. A. Cohen, Mark Freedman, Myla Goldman, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Eva Havrdová, Douglas Jeffery, Raj Kapoor, Aaron Miller, Finn Sellebjerg, Deborah Kinch, Sophia Lee, Diego Cadavid

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisPost-hoc analysisNatalizumabMedicineClinical endpointPost hocPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationExpanded Disability Status ScaleInternal medicineClinical trialImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Present rationale for a primary composite endpoint of disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) clinical trials. BACKGROUND: While the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has wide scientific/regulatory precedent, it has limited ability to detect clinically relevant disability progression in SPMS patients and lacks measures of upper extremity and short-distance ambulatory function. Previously, we observed that Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) and 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) identified frequent progression events in placebo-treated subjects from IMPACT, a 2-year trial of intramuscular interferon-beta-1a in SPMS. DESIGN/METHODS: Using data from the IMPACT placebo arm, we analyzed progression on T25FW, 9HPT, and EDSS, defined as 24-week confirmed minimum worsening of 20[percnt] (T25FW, 9HPT) or 蠅1.0-point increase from baseline ≤5.5 or 蠅0.5-point increase from baseline 蠅6.0 (EDSS). A novel composite progression endpoint, “EDSS-Plus,” was defined as progression on 蠅1 of 3 components (T25FW, 9HPT, and/or EDSS). RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 216 placebo-treated subjects. After 2 years, 59.3[percnt] of subjects had 24-week confirmed disability progression on EDSS-Plus versus 24.5[percnt], 39.4[percnt], and 34.3[percnt] on EDSS, T25FW, and 9HPT, respectively. Among subjects with EDSS baseline ≤5.5 (n=111), 50.5[percnt] exhibited progression on EDSS-Plus versus 21.6[percnt], 30.6[percnt], and 26.1[percnt] on EDSS, T25FW, and 9HPT, respectively; among subjects with EDSS baseline 蠅6.0 (n=105), 68.6[percnt] exhibited progression on EDSS-Plus versus 27.6[percnt], 49.0[percnt], and 42.9[percnt] on EDSS, T25FW, and 9HPT, respectively. Over 2 years, subjects classified as T25FW and 9HPT progressors had average worsening of ~100[percnt] and ~200[percnt], respectively, greatly exceeding the minimum 20[percnt] threshold, while T25FW and 9HPT nonprogressors remained close to their baseline level. This indicates that the 24-week confirmed 蠅20[percnt] worsening threshold is useful in classifying clinically meaningful progression on T25FW and 9HPT in SPMS. CONCLUSIONS: EDSS-Plus is a sensitive, clinically meaningful endpoint to capture treatment effects on disability progression in SPMS over 2 years. Funding: Biogen Idec

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207