Changes in plasma and urine globotriaosylceramide levels do not predict Fabry disease progression over 1 year of agalsidase alfa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Globotriaosylceramide concentrations were assessed as potential predictors of change from baseline after 12 months by estimated glomerular filtration rate and left-ventricular mass index using pooled data from three randomized, placebo-controlled agalsidase alfa trials and open-label extensions of patients with Fabry disease. METHODS: Males (aged 18 years or older) with Fabry disease received agalsidase alfa (0.2 mg/kg every other week for 12 months). A backward-elimination approach evaluated potential predictors (baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and left-ventricular mass index; age at first dose; baseline and change from baseline at 12 months of globotriaosylceramide (urine, plasma); urine protein excretion; and systolic and diastolic blood pressure). Subgroups included patients randomized to placebo or agalsidase alfa (double-blind phase), then to agalsidase alfa (open-label extensions; placebo→agalsidase alfa or agalsidase alfa→agalsidase alfa, respectively) and stage 2/3 chronic kidney disease patients. RESULTS: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, age at first dose, baseline urine globotriaosylceramide excretion, and baseline and change from baseline urine protein excretion significantly predicted change from baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate in the analysis population (N = 73; all P<0.05), although not in all subgroups. Change from baseline urine and plasma globotriaosylceramide (baseline and change from baseline) concentrations did not predict change from baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. No predictors of left-ventricular mass index were significant. CONCLUSION: Changes in globotriaosylceramide concentrations do not appear to be useful biomarkers for prediction of Fabry disease-related changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate or left-ventricular mass index.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".