MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291583316 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2262

Framework for Clinical Trials in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease (FINESSE)

2022· review· en· W4291583316 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and genetic disorders
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsCADASILMedicineClinical trialCerebral amyloid angiopathyLacunar strokeRandomized controlled trialDiseasePathologyDementiaBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineIschemic strokeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) causes a quarter of strokes and is the most common pathology underlying vascular cognitive impairment and dementia. An important step to developing new treatments is better trial methodology. Disease mechanisms in SVD differ from other stroke etiologies; therefore, treatments need to be evaluated in cohorts in which SVD has been well characterized. Furthermore, SVD itself can be caused by a number of different pathologies, the most common of which are arteriosclerosis and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. To date, there have been few sufficiently powered high-quality randomized clinical trials in SVD, and inconsistent trial methodology has made interpretation of some findings difficult. Observations: To address these issues and develop guidelines for optimizing design of clinical trials in SVD, the Framework for Clinical Trials in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease (FINESSE) was created under the auspices of the International Society of Vascular Behavioral and Cognitive Disorders. Experts in relevant aspects of SVD trial methodology were convened, and a structured Delphi consensus process was used to develop recommendations. Areas in which recommendations were developed included optimal choice of study populations, choice of clinical end points, use of brain imaging as a surrogate outcome measure, use of circulating biomarkers for participant selection and as surrogate markers, novel trial designs, and prioritization of therapeutic agents using genetic data via Mendelian randomization. Conclusions and Relevance: The FINESSE provides recommendations for trial design in SVD for which there are currently few effective treatments. However, new insights into understanding disease pathogenesis, particularly from recent genetic studies, provide novel pathways that could be therapeutically targeted. In addition, whether other currently available cardiovascular interventions are specifically effective in SVD, as opposed to other subtypes of stroke, remains uncertain. FINESSE provides a framework for design of trials examining such therapeutic approaches.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.173 · 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