A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, delayed start study to assess rasagiline as a disease modifying therapy in Parkinson's disease (the ADAGIO study): Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A neuroprotective therapy is the single most important unmet medical need in Parkinson's disease. Several promising agents in the laboratory have been tested in the clinic, but none has been established in clinical trials to have a disease modifying effect despite positive results because of potential confounding symptomatic or pharmacologic effects. The delayed start design was developed to try to avoid a symptomatic confound when testing a putative neuroprotective therapy. In this study design, patients are randomly assigned to study drug or placebo in the first phase of the study, and both groups receive the active drug in the second phase. If benefits seen at the end of phase I persist through the end of phase II, they cannot be readily explained by a symptomatic effect (as patients in both groups are receiving the same medication) and benefits in the early start group must relate to the early initiation of the treatment. Although the precise mechanism responsible for such an effect can be debated, positive results in a delayed start study indicate that patients who receive early treatment have a better outcome than those where the treatment is delayed. We are using the delayed start design to assess the potential disease modifying effects of rasagiline in a prospective double blind controlled trial (the ADAGIO study). We here describe the rationale for the study and baseline characteristics of the 1,176 patients who have been enrolled into the trial.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it