Inosine 5'‐Monophosphate to Raise Serum Uric Acid Level in Multiple System Atrophy (IMPROVE‐MSA study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this trial was to investigate the safety, tolerability, and capability of serum uric acid (UA) elevation of inosine 5'-monophosphate (IMP) in multiple system atrophy (MSA). The IMPROVE-MSA trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with MSA with no history of hyperuricemia-related disorders. The participants were assigned to placebo (n = 25) or IMP (n = 30) in a 1 to 1 ratio, and then followed up for 24 weeks. The primary end points included safety, tolerability, and alteration of the serum UA level during the follow-up period. The secondary end points were changes in scores of the unified MSA rating scale (UMSARS) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The total number of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was comparable between the active and placebo groups. Serum UA level (mg/dL) was significantly increased from baseline (active vs. placebo, 4.57 vs. 4.58; P = 0.98) to study end point (6.96 vs. 4.43; P < 0.001) in the active group compared with the placebo group (time × group interaction; P < 0.001). The change in UMSARS scores did not differ between the active and placebo groups. However, the active group showed better alterations in MoCA scores with nominal significance (P < 0.001) and tendency for better alterations in MMSE scores (P = 0.09) than the placebo group. Our data demonstrated that IMP treatment was generally safe and well-tolerated in patients with MSA. A further trial with a long-term follow-up is required to examine whether UA elevation will slow clinical progression in early MSA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".