P.060 Time to treatment effect in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1 (SMA1): an indirect comparison of treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: SMA1 is a rapidly progressing disease resulting in death/permanent ventilation by 2 years. This study compared clinical trial data evaluating the relationship between treatment timing, time to treatment effect, and clinical outcomes in SMA1 patients Methods: A post-hoc indirect treatment comparison was conducted to measure time-to-effect differences in AVXS-101 (CL-101, NCT02122952, cohort 2) vs nusinersen (ENDEAR, NCT02193074) or risdiplam (FIREFISH, NCT02913482) using CHOP-INTEND scores. Results: Compared with nusinersen, AVXS-101 more rapidly increased mean CHOP-INTEND score from baseline (9.8- and 14.9-point increase at 1- and 2-months post-AVXS-101 vs ≤5-point increase at 2-months post-nusinersen). Greater survival benefits and lower rates of permanent ventilatory support were also observed in AVXS-101- vs nusinersen-treated patients. Compared with risdiplam treatment, AVXS-101 improved median CHOP-INTEND scores (14.0-point increase at 2-months post-AVXS-101 vs 5.5-point increase at ~2-months post-risdiplam). Treatment differences were maintained through 8-months with additional improvements at all time-points. Conclusions: Although patients in these 3 cohorts are not entirely matched (e.g. age, disease severity), useful comparisons can still be made. Based on CHOP-INTEND scores, the treatment effect of AVXS-101 appears to be more rapid vs nusinersen or risdiplam. These findings suggest that timely restoration of SMN protein may be essential for maximizing outcomes in SMA1 patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".