Current State of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trials
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
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a genetic disorder with a very large global burden for which more therapeutic management regimens are required. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors explore HCM-related clinical trials, determine the shortcomings leading to the lack of development of new HCM therapies, and attempt to shed light on potential areas for improvement. METHODS: In January 2019, the authors completed a search on ClinicalTrials.gov for all therapeutic and interventional clinical trials involving HCM, without any limits for location or date. Information on trial characteristics such as phase, start and end dates, sample size, experimental intervention, publications, study design, selection criteria, and results were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-three trials met the selection criteria. The average trial duration across phases was around 3 years. Around one-half of the trials were conducted in North America (United States and Canada) and 44% of the trials were in their early phases (I and II). Approximately one-third of the trials were completed. Only 14 publications were produced from all the clinical trials studied. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed a low number of trials, lack of geographic diversity, and scarcity of published results concerning HCM clinical trials. Proper management of HCM trials is of vast importance to achieve effective therapies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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