Clinical Evaluation of a Neuroprotective Drug in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Undergoing Surgical Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive article and narrative review. OBJECTIVE: To explain the rationale and design of the cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM)-Protect clinical trial that aims to elucidate the efficacy and safety of riluzole in the context of CSM. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CSM is the most common cause of spinal cord-related dysfunction internationally. Although surgery is effective in preventing the progression of impairment, and in some cases improving functional outcomes, many patients continue to exhibit significant disability in the postoperative setting. Evidence from preclinical studies suggests that glutamate-related excitotoxicity may contribute to the pathology of CSM and that administration of the sodium and glutamate-blocking medication riluzole, when combined with spinal cord decompression, may mitigate this effect and improve neurobehavioral outcomes. Although riluzole is FDA approved and has been shown to be safe and effective in the context of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, its efficacy and safety in the context of CSM remain unknown. METHODS: Descriptive article with narrative review of the literature. RESULTS: In addition to providing pertinent preclinical background on the topic, this descriptive article and narrative review discusses the design and current status of an ongoing phase III randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of riluzole, combined with surgical decompression, in the treatment of CSM. CONCLUSION: On the basis of current projections, we estimate that the interim analysis for this study will take place in the spring of 2014, at which time an adaptive sample size adjustment may take place.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".