Addressing heterogeneity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis CLINICAL TRIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder with complex biology and significant clinical heterogeneity. Many preclinical and early phase ALS clinical trials have yielded promising results that could not be replicated in larger phase 3 confirmatory trials. One reason for the lack of reproducibility may be ALS biological and clinical heterogeneity. Therefore, in this review, we explore sources of ALS heterogeneity that may reduce statistical power to evaluate efficacy in ALS trials. We also review efforts to manage clinical heterogeneity, including use of validated disease outcome measures, predictive biomarkers of disease progression, and individual clinical risk stratification. We propose that personalized prognostic models with use of predictive biomarkers may identify patients with ALS for whom a specific therapeutic strategy may be expected to be more successful. Finally, the rapid application of emerging clinical and biomarker strategies may reduce heterogeneity, increase trial efficiency, and, in turn, accelerate ALS drug development.
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 | 0.055 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".