Reliable surrogate outcome measures in multicenter clinical trials of Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the reliability of a series of endpoints in an evaluation of subjects with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The endpoints included quantitative muscle tests (QMTs), timed function tests, forced vital capacity (FVC), and manual muscle tests (MMT). Thirty-one ambulatory subjects with DMD (mean age 8.9 years; range 5-16 years) were evaluated at eight sites by 15 newly trained evaluators as a test of interrater reliability of outcome measures. Both total QMT score [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.96] and individual QMT assessments (ICC 0.85-0.96) were highly reliable. Forced vital capacity and all timed function tests were also highly reliable (ICC 0.97-0.99). MMT was the least reliable assessment method (ICC 0.61). These data suggest that primary surrogate outcome measures in large multicenter clinical trials in DMD should use QMT, FVC, or time function tests to obtain maximum power and greatest sensitivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.396 | 0.480 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".