MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Use of Quantile Regression to Characterize Solanezumab Effects across Percentiles of Disease Progression in EXPEDITION Alzheimer's Disease Trials (P7.102)

2015· article· en· W2477336985 on OpenAlexaff
Yun-Fei Chen, Xiwen Ma, Karen Sundell, Karla Alaka, Kory Schuh, Joel Raskin, Robert A. Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantile regressionMedicinePercentileDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseRegressionOncologyInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Use quantile regression to characterize solanezumab effects in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients based on degree of disease progression. BACKGROUND: Twenty-seven percent of patients with clinically defined mild-to-moderate AD enrolled in 2 solanezumab trials had baseline assessments of amyloid status. Of those, 17[percnt] were negative and did not exhibit progressive decline typical of AD. Because comparison of solanezumab- and placebo-treatment effects on clinical progression in amyloid positive versus negative patients in the full cohort was precluded, we developed a novel statistical strategy to examine treatment effects in patients who did and did not show typical disease progression. DESIGN/METHODS: Quantile regression was used to examine solanezumab- and placebo-treatment differences in a pooled dataset. Patients demonstrating clinical decline typical of AD were represented in upper clinical-change percentiles; patients with a clinical course atypical of AD were represented in lower percentiles. This approach modeled change from baseline on 2 primary measures: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog14) and Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory Instrumental domain (ADCS iADL). RESULTS: ADAS-Cog14 at Week 80: In patients with mild AD, solanezumab treatment effect was greater in the upper percentiles (AD-typical). Compared with placebo, solanezumab slowed disease progression by 1.27, 1.98, 2.55, and 3.07 points in the 30th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles. In lower percentiles (AD-atypical), solanezumab showed less effect. ADCS-iADL at Week 80: In patients with mild AD, compared with placebo, solanezumab slowed disease progression by 0.47, 0.99, 1.79, and 1.69 points in the 30th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles. In patients with moderate AD, solanezumab did not show effects across most percentiles on either measure. Conclusions: Results support design of current/future solanezumab trials to be limited to mild AD patients with evidence of amyloid pathology. Further, quantile regression is useful for retrospectively analyzing data when amyloid status was not uniformly determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→