Corrigendum to “Randomized phase 2 trial and open-label extension of domagrozumab in Duchenne muscular dystrophy” [Neuromuscular Disorders, Vol. 30 (6) 2020, 492-502]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reported on the results from a phase 2 trial of domagrozumab and its open-label extension in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02310763 and NCT02907619). The manuscript also provided results on two secondary endpoints for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), muscle volume and muscle volume index. The authors regret that, following publication of the results and in preparation for a separate publication on MRI results from this trial, the MRI images were reviewed and segmentation errors were identified. As a result, the team worked to (1) Perform a rigorous quality inspection of all analysed data; (2) Identify cases where there were incorrect segmentations; (3) correct segmentation errors; (4) Re-analyse all data with correct segmentation. Using the updated MRI data, the MMRM analysis showed there was a change in the significance of secondary endpoints evaluating Thigh Muscle Volume and Muscle Volume Index. No significant differences between treatment groups in muscle volume measures were found in the original analysis. These results have not altered the overall interpretation of the study results but do necessitate revisions to the article. These data confirm that the trial design and execution adequately tested the hypothesis that myostatin inhibition would slow or delay the loss of function in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The increase in muscle volume observed by MRI in patients with DMD treated with domagrozumab is in accordance with mechanism of action for domagrozumab, which targets myostatin, a negative regulator of muscle growth. The increase in muscle volume did not lead to a clinical benefit in patients with DMD. The primary endpoint (4 stair climb) did not meet statistical significance, nor did the other functional tests. The study was terminated due to lack of efficacy. Full details of the needed revisions are as follows: 1. In the results section 3.6 (page 8, second paragraph), we reported no significant differences in mean percent change from baseline between domagrozumab and placebo for both muscle volume and muscle volume index. This paragraph was replaced with the following text: “There was a significant difference between domagrozumab and placebo in the mean percent change from baseline in thigh muscle volume at Week 17 (difference 2.945%, P=0.0087) and Week 49 (differences 4.087%, P=0.0298), and in muscle volume index at Week 33 (difference 2.612%, P=0.0376) and Week 49 (differences3.208%, P=0.0411).” 2. In the discussion (page 9), the following sentence, “Although neither muscle volume nor muscle volume index measures were statistically significant in this study, they are both consistent with a potential anabolic effect.” was replaced with, “The increase in muscle volume observed on MRI in patients with DMD treated with domagrozumab, is in accordance with mechanism of action for this compound which targets myostatin, a negative regulator of muscle growth. However, the increase in muscle volume did not lead to a clinical benefit (improved function) in patients with DMD.” 3. In view of the correction to the Results section, this is now reflected in the abstract which has changed to read: “There were no significant between-group differences in secondary clinical endpoints, except for the thigh muscle volume and muscle volume index measures (P<0.05).” The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Randomized phase 2 trial and open-label extension of domagrozumab in Duchenne muscular dystrophyNeuromuscular DisordersVol. 30Issue 6PreviewDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked, progressive, neuromuscular disorder caused by mutations in the DMD gene that result in a lack of dystrophin protein. Dystrophin is critical for membrane integrity in skeletal and cardiac muscle cells; its loss leads to skeletal and cardiac muscle degeneration [1]. Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".