A phase 2 multiple ascending dose trial of bapineuzumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bapineuzumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Abeta) monoclonal antibody for the potential treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), was evaluated in a multiple ascending dose, safety, and efficacy study in mild to moderate AD. METHODS: The study enrolled 234 patients, randomly assigned to IV bapineuzumab or placebo in 4 dose cohorts (0.15, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg). Patients received 6 infusions, 13 weeks apart, with final assessments at week 78. The prespecified primary efficacy analysis in the modified intent-to-treat population assumed linear decline and compared treatment differences within dose cohorts on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive and Disability Assessment for Dementia. Exploratory analyses combined dose cohorts and did not assume a specific pattern of decline. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the primary efficacy analysis. Exploratory analyses showed potential treatment differences (p < 0.05, unadjusted for multiple comparisons) on cognitive and functional endpoints in study "completers" and APOE epsilon4 noncarriers. Reversible vasogenic edema, detected on brain MRI in 12/124 (9.7%) bapineuzumab-treated patients, was more frequent in higher dose groups and APOE epsilon4 carriers. Six vasogenic edema patients were asymptomatic; 6 experienced transient symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Primary efficacy outcomes in this phase 2 trial were not significant. Potential treatment differences in the exploratory analyses support further investigation of bapineuzumab in phase 3 with special attention to APOE epsilon4 carrier status. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: Due to varying doses and a lack of statistical precision, this Class II ascending dose trial provides insufficient evidence to support or refute a benefit of bapineuzumab.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".