MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994108540 · doi:10.1080/14660820310006689

A prospective, randomized, placebo‐controlled evaluation of corticoneuronal response to intrathecal BDNF therapy in ALS using magnetic resonance spectroscopy: feasibility and results

2003· article· en· W1994108540 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjay Kalra, Angela Genge, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Disorders · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingPlaceboCreatineMedicinePremotor cortexSuperior parietal lobuleSurrogate endpointFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineInternal medicineAnesthesiaPathologyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the multicenter, phase III trial of intrathecal BDNF in ALS, we evaluated the neuronal marker N-acetylaspartate (NAA) as a surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) in a prospective and blinded manner. Selected subjects tolerated the study well without pump malfunction. The NAA to creatine (Cr) intensity ratio (NAA/Cr) was measured in the precentral and postcentral gyri, the superior parietal lobule, the supplementary motor area, and the premotor cortex. After 4.5+/-0.6 weeks treatment, NAA/Cr did not change significantly in any of the regions in the BDNF-treated group (n=5) compared to the placebo group (n=6). The lack of change in NAA correlated with the lack of clinical efficacy and supports the validity of NAA/Cr as a surrogate in this setting. MRSI is a feasible and safe method to evaluate intrathecal therapies in ALS.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations91
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron DisordersSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207