A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of pridopidine in Huntington's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of 3 dosages of pridopidine, a dopamine-stabilizing compound, on motor function and other features of Huntington's disease, with additional evaluation of its safety and tolerability. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in outpatient neurology clinics at 27 sites in the United States and Canada. Two hundred twenty-seven subjects enrolled from October 24, 2009, to May 10, 2010. The intervention was pridopidine, either 20 (n=56), 45 (n=55), or 90 (n=58) mg daily for 12 weeks or matching placebo (n=58). The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline to week 12 in the Modified Motor Score, a subset of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale Total Motor Score. Measures of safety and tolerability included adverse events and trial completion on the assigned dosage. After 12 weeks, the treatment effect (relative to placebo, where negative values indicate improvement) of pridopidine 90 mg/day on the Modified Motor Score was -1.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 0.1 points; P = .08). The effect on the Total Motor Score was -2.8 points (95% CI, -5.4 to -0.1 points; nominal P = .04). No significant effects were seen in secondary outcome measures with any of the active dosages. Pridopidine was generally well tolerated. Although the primary analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant treatment effect, the overall results suggest that pridopidine may improve motor function in Huntington's disease. The 90 mg/day dosage appears worthy of further study. Pridopidine was well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".