Immunotherapy with ponezumab for probable cerebral amyloid angiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Cerebral amyloid angiopathy ( CAA ) is caused by cerebrovascular deposition of β ‐amyloid fragments leading to cerebrovascular dysfunction and other brain injuries. This phase 2, randomized, double–blind trial in patients with probable CAA assessed the efficacy and safety of ponezumab, a novel monoclonal antibody against A β 1–40 . Methods Thirty‐six participants aged 55–80 years with probable CAA received intravenous placebo ( n = 12) or ponezumab ( n = 24). The change from baseline to Days 2 and 90 in cerebrovascular reactivity ( CVR ) was measured in the visual cortex as the natural log of the rising slope of the BOLD fMRI response to a visual stimulus. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results The mean change from baseline to Day 90 was 0.817 (ponezumab) and 0.958 (placebo): a mean ratio of 0.852 (90% CI 0.735–0.989) representing a trend towards reduced CVR in the ponezumab group. This trend was not present at Day 2. There was one asymptomatic occurrence of amyloid–related imaging abnormality–edema in the ponezumab group. The total number of new cerebral microbleeds from baseline to day 90 did not differ between groups. The ponezumab group had a participant with nonfatal new cerebral hemorrhage with aphasia and a participant with subdural hemorrhage that site investigators deemed to be nondrug related. In the placebo group one participant had a fatal intracerebral hemorrhage and one participant had migraine with aura. Interpretation Ponezumab was safe and well‐tolerated. The ponezumab group showed a trend towards treatment effect at Day 90 that was opposite to the hypothesized direction. The prespecified efficacy criteria were thus not met.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".