A double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending-dose study of remyelinating antibody rHIgM22 in people with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to assess, in individuals with clinically stable multiple sclerosis (MS), the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and exploratory pharmacodynamics of the monoclonal recombinant human antibody IgM22 (rHIgM22). METHODS: Seventy-two adults with stable MS were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single ascending-dose, Phase 1 trial examining rHIgM22 from 0.025 to 2.0 mg/kg. Assessments included MRI, MR spectroscopy, plasma PK, and changes in clinical status, laboratory values and adverse events for three months. The final cohort had additional clinical, ophthalmologic, CSF collection and exploratory biomarker evaluations. Participants were monitored for six months. RESULTS: . The steady-state apparent volume of distribution of approximately 58 ml/kg suggested primarily vascular compartmentalization. CSF:plasma rHIgM22 concentration increased from 0.003% on Day 2 for both 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg to 0.056% and 0.586% for 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg, respectively, on Day 29. No statistically significant treatment-related changes were observed in exploratory pharmacodynamic outcome measures included for the 21 participants of the extension cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of rHIgM22 were well tolerated and exhibited linear PK, and antibody was detected in the CSF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".