MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006963432 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.178

A179 CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE EVALUATION OF NOVEL THERAPY FOR DIABETIC GASTROPARESIS: OVERVIEW OF PLEDGE TRIALS

2020· article· en· W3006963432 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lang Liu, M Syrzycka, Peter M. Janiszewski, Lara Kemps, B Degeronimo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaPlaceboGastroparesisGlycemicClinical trialVomitingLiraglutideRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineInterim analysisDiabetes mellitusGastric emptyingType 2 diabetesInsulinAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Diabetic gastroparesis(DG) is a serious, chronic complication of type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus(DM) presenting with a delay in gastric emptying(GE). An estimated 3 million Canadians have been diagnosed with DM; up to 5% of these patients may develop DG. DG can result in poor glycemic control, recurrent nausea and vomiting, often resulting in hospitalization. To date, no effective treatments are available. A phase 2 study showed that relamorelin (RLM), a synthetic ghrelin agonist, was safe and effective in treating DG. Investigators across Canada are participating in a set of phase 3 international trials of RLM in the treatment of DG. Aims To report the Canadian involvement in the international effort to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RLM in the treatment of DG. PLEDGE is a set of 5 trials: two identical 12-week studies, a 46-week extension study, a 52-week exposure study, and an open-label extension study. Collectively, the data from these studies will help to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RLM, a novel treatment for Canadian patients living with DG. Methods Four global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies compare the efficacy of RLM with placebo in participants with DG using composite endpoints of nausea, abdominal pain, postprandial fullness, bloating. Participants are randomized to RLM 10μg or placebo subcutaneously (SC) twice daily groups. The open-label continuation of treatment will follow participants until RLM becomes commercially available to provide long-term safety information to support the safe use of RLM as a chronic treatment of DG. As seen in Figure 1, participants from the two 12-week studies will rollover into the third study that will continue for 46 weeks. The fourth study will enroll participants that were not randomized in the first two studies because their symptoms were less severe and will also accept new participants. Participants will be randomized 2:1 to RLM 10μg or placebo SC twice daily groups. Participants from the third and fourth studies have the option to enroll in the open-label study. Results Target enrollment is approx. 1800 participants for the 4 global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies and 1000 participants for the open label study. 700 sites are expected to participate globally; 15 Canadian sites in 6 provinces are participating. Conclusions Canadian centers are actively involved in the PLEDGE trials to help determine the efficacy and safety of RLM, a potential new treatment for DG. This publication increases awareness of the Canadian gastroenterology community, providing an option to refer interested patients to PLEDGE study centers. PLEDGE Studies (NCT03285308, NCT03426345, NCT03420781, NCT03383146, NCT03786380): Placebo-controlled, randomized RLM-MD-01/02/03/04 and open-label study 3071-305-020 to study the safety and efficacy of relamorelin for the treatment of diabetic gastroparesis Funding Agencies None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207