Randomized phase 2 trial and open-label extension of domagrozumab in Duchenne muscular dystrophy
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
We report results from a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, 2-period trial (48 weeks each) of domagrozumab and its open-label extension in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Of 120 ambulatory boys (aged 6 to <16 years) with DMD, 80 were treated with multiple ascending doses (5, 20, and 40 mg/kg) of domagrozumab and 40 treated with placebo. The primary endpoints were safety and mean change in 4-stair climb (4SC) time at week 49. Secondary endpoints included other functional tests, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Mean (SD) age was 8.4 (1.7) and 9.3 (2.3) years in domagrozumab- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Difference in mean (95% CI) change from baseline in 4SC at week 49 for domagrozumab vs placebo was 0.27 (-7.4 to 7.9) seconds (p = 0.94). There were no significant between-group differences in any secondary clinical endpoints. Most patients had ≥1 adverse event in the first 48 weeks; most were mild and not treatment-related. Median serum concentrations of domagrozumab increased with administered dose within each dose level. Non-significant increases in muscle volume were observed in domagrozumab- vs placebo-treated patients. Domagrozumab was generally safe and well tolerated in patients with DMD. Efficacy measures did not support a significant treatment effect. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02310763 and NCT02907619.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it