Evaluation of dose‐dependent treatment effects after mid‐trial dose escalation in biomarker, clinical, and cognitive outcomes for gantenerumab or solanezumab in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) was ongoing, external data suggested higher doses were needed to achieve targeted effects; therefore, doses of gantenerumab were increased 5-fold, and solanezumab was increased 4-fold. We evaluated to what extent mid-trial dose increases produced a dose-dependent treatment effect. Methods: Using generalized linear mixed effects (LME) models, we estimated the annual low- and high-dose treatment effects in clinical, cognitive, and biomarker outcomes. Results: Both gantenerumab and solanezumab demonstrated dose-dependent treatment effects (significant for gantenerumab, non-significant for solanezumab) in their respective target amyloid biomarkers (Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography standardized uptake value ratio and cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta 42), with gantenerumab demonstrating additional treatment effects in some downstream biomarkers. No dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in clinical or cognitive outcomes. Conclusions: Mid-trial dose escalation can be implemented as a remedy for an insufficient initial dose and can be more cost effective and less burdensome to participants than starting a new trial with higher doses, especially in rare diseases. Highlights: We evaluated the dose-dependent treatment effect of two different amyloid-specific immunotherapies.Dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in some biomarkers.No dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in clinical/cognitive outcomes, potentially due to the fact that the modified study may not have been powered to detect such treatment effects in symptomatic subjects at a mild stage of disease exposed to high (or maximal) doses of medication for prolonged durations.
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 | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".