A First‐in‐Human Phase 1 Randomized Single and Multiple Ascending Dose Study of RPh201 in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RPh201 is a drug extracted from gum mastic that has been studied for its anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties. Preclinical studies of RPh201 demonstrated neuroprotective and neuroenhancing effects. Toxicology studies in animals did not reveal safety concerns or genotoxic effects. This single-center, phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked study in healthy volunteers assessed the safety and tolerability of RPh201, and determined the highest tolerated dose. There were 2 parts: a single ascending dose (SAD) stage, followed by a multiple ascending dose (MAD) stage. Three dosing arms were included in each stage (5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg). Safety data in the lower dosing arms were evaluated before higher doses were initiated. Eighteen participants were randomized in the SAD stage: 12 to RPh201 (4 at each dose) and 4 to placebo. Twenty-one participants were randomized in the MAD stage, of which 13 received RPh201. All 18 participants in the SAD stage completed treatment. Sixteen of the 21 participants in the MAD stage completed treatment. The most frequently reported adverse events were local injection site pain and erythema. No deaths or adverse events related to changes in vital signs or electrocardiograms were reported. No occurrences of suicidal behavior or ideation were reported.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".