Perspectives on Clinical Trials in Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal muscular atrophy is one of the most heterogeneous of the single-gene neuromuscular disorders. The broad spectrum of severity, with onset from the prenatal period to adulthood, presents unique challenges in the design and implementation of clinical trials. The clinical classification of subjects into severe (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and mild (type 3) subtypes has proved useful both in enhancing communication among clinicians internationally and in forging the collaborative development of outcome measures for clinical trials. Ideally, clinical trial design in spinal muscular atrophy must take into account the spinal muscular atrophy type, patient age, severity-of-affection status, nature of the therapeutic approach, timing of the proposed intervention relative to disease progression, and relative homogeneity of the cohort to be studied. Following is an overview of the challenges and opportunities, current and future therapeutic strategies, and progress to date in clinical trials in spinal muscular atrophy.
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 | 0.047 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".