Methodological Issues in Randomized Clinical Trials for Prodromal Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are the first and second most common neurodegenerative disorders, respectively. Both are proteinopathies with inexorable courses and no approved disease-modifying therapies. A substantial effort has been made to identify interventions that could slow down the progression of AD and PD; to date, with no success. The advances in biomarker research improved the identification of individuals at risk for these disorders before symptom onset, recognizing the pre-clinical stage, in which there is abnormal protein accumulation but no clinical symptoms of the disease, and the prodromal stage, in which mild symptoms are present but the clinical diagnostic criteria for disease cannot be fulfilled. The ability to detect pre-clinical and prodromal stages of these diseases has encouraged clinical trials for disease-modification at earlier phases, seeking to slow or prevent phenoconversion into clinical disease. Clinical trials at these stages have several challenges, such as the identification of the eligible population, the appropriate choice of biomarkers, the definition of clinical endpoints, the duration of follow-up, and the statistical analysis. This article aims to discuss some of the methodological challenges in the design of trials for pre-clinical and prodromal phases of AD and PD, to critically review the recent studies, and to discuss methodological approaches to mitigate these challenges in trial design.
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 | 0.518 | 0.638 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".