Enrichment factors for clinical trials in mild‐to‐moderate Alzheimer's disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Heterogeneity of outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials necessitates large sample sizes and contributes to study failures. This analysis determined whether mild‐to‐moderate AD populations could be enriched for cognitive decline based on apolipoprotein ( APOE ) ε4 genotype, family history of AD, and amyloid abnormalities. Methods Modeling estimated the number of randomized patients needed to detect a 2‐point treatment difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive subscale using placebo data from three randomized, double‐blind trials ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01955161 , NCT02006641 , and NCT02006654 ). Results An 80% power to detect a 2‐point treatment effect required the randomization of 148 amyloid‐positive patients; 178 ε4 homozygous or amyloid‐positive patients; and 231 ε4 homozygous, family history‐positive, or amyloid‐positive patients, compared with 1619 unenriched patients (per arm). Discussion Enrichment in mild‐to‐moderate AD clinical trials can be achieved using combinations of biomarkers/risk factors to increase the likelihood of observing potential treatment effects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it