MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233160065 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554322

Efficacy and Safety of Riluzole in Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Rationale and Design of AOSpine Phase III Multicenter Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W4233160065 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Branko Kopjar, Robert G. Grossman, Jefferson R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiluzoleMedicinePlaceboSpinal cord injuryRandomized controlled trialClinical trialAdverse effectAnesthesiaInternal medicineSpinal cordAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There is convincing evidence from the preclinical realm that the pharmacologic agent riluzole attenuates certain aspects of the secondary injury cascade leading to diminished neurological tissue destruction in animal spinal cord injury (SCI) models. The safety and pharmacokinetic profile of riluzole has been studied in a multicenter pilot study in 36 patients. Efficacy of riluzole in acute human SCI has not been established. Material and Methods This phase II/III multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial will involve up to 35 sites. A total of 351 patients with acute C4–C8 SCI and ASIA Impairment Grade A, B, or C will be randomized 1:1 to riluzole and placebo. Primary outcome is the change in ASIA Total Motor Score between baseline and 180 days. Other measures include ASIA Upper Extremity Motor Score; ASIA Lower Extremity Motor Score; ASIA Sensory Score; ASIA Grade; Spinal Cord Independence Measure; SF-36v2; EQ-5D, and GRASSP. The statistical design utilizes two-stage sequential adaptive trial. A sample size of 316 patients (158 in each arm) will have 90% power to detect 9 points difference in the ASIA Motor Score at one-sided α = 0.025. To account for losses to follow-up of up to 10%, the study will enroll 351 patients. Results Within the phase 1 study, a matched cohort analysis was performed comparing complication rates and neurological outcomes between patients who received riluzole and non-riluzole-treated patients from a prospective SCI registry. Although the groups experienced similar rates of complications, riluzole-treated cervical SCI patients experienced an additional 15.5 points in AMS recovery at 90 days after injury as compared with non-riluzole-treated patients. Although the phase I study was underpowered to investigate the efficacy, the current phase II/III study is poised to definitively address this question. Patient enrollment for this trial began on October 1, 2013. Conclusion This is a pivotal study of riluzole in acute SCI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207