MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901219147 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024084

Protocol for a phase II, open-label exploratory study investigating the efficacy of fesoterodine for treatment of adult patients with spinal cord injury suffering from neurogenic detrusor overactivity for amelioration of autonomic dysreflexia

2018· article· en· W2901219147 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthias Walter, Andrea L. Ramirez, Amanda H. X. Lee, Daniel Rapoport, Alex Kavanagh, Andrei V. Krassioukov

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPfizer CanadaRick Hansen FoundationFaculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesMichael Smith Health Research BCPfizer
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryProtocol (science)AnesthesiaSpinal cordAlternative medicinePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Managing and preventing risk factors associated with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular impairment is well studied in able-bodied individuals. However, individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) at or above the spinal segment T6 are prone to experience autonomic dysreflexia (AD) but also to suffer from neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). Treatment of NDO would not only improve lower urinary tract function but could also reduce the severity and frequency of life-threatening episodes of AD. Fesoterodine, an antimuscarinic drug, has been successfully employed as a first-line treatment for detrusor overactivity in individuals without an underlying neurological disorder. Thus, our aim is to investigate the efficacy of fesoterodine to improve NDO and ameliorate AD in individuals with SCI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This phase II, open-label exploratory, non-blinded, non-randomised, single-centre study will investigate the efficacy of fesoterodine to improve NDO and ameliorate AD in individuals with chronic SCI at or above T6. During screening, we will interview potential candidates (with a previous history of NDO and AD) and assess their injury severity. At baseline, we will perform cardiovascular and cerebrovascular monitoring (blood pressure (BP), heart rate and cerebral blood flow velocity) during urodynamics (UDS) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) during daily life to assess severity and frequency of AD episodes (ie, maximum increase in systolic BP). The primary outcome is a reduction of artificially induced (during UDS) and spontaneous (during daily life) episodes of AD as a display of treatment efficacy. To answer this, we will repeat UDS and 24-hour ABPM during the last cycle of the treatment phase (12 weeks overall, ie, three cycles of 4 weeks each). At the end of each treatment cycle, participants will be asked to answer standardised questionnaires (AD symptoms and quality of life) and present bladder and bowel diaries, which will provide additional subjective information. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of British Columbia Research Ethics Boards (H15-02364), Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (V15-02364) and Health Canada (205857) approved this study. The findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings. This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials statements. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02676154; Pre-results.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.016

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→