A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Parallel Design Thorough QT Study With a Nested Crossover to Compare the Cardiac Safety of Amiselimod With Placebo and Positive Control in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This double-blind study evaluated the cardiac safety of amiselimod. Healthy adults (n = 190) were randomized (2:1:1) to receive (1) oral placebo (day -1), followed by oral amiselimod (days 1-26), which was upwardly titrated from 0.4 to 1.6 mg once daily to achieve steady-state concentrations comparable with 0.4 (therapeutic) and 0.8 mg (supratherapeutic) once daily, and placebo (day 27); (2) placebo (day -1), oral moxifloxacin 400 mg (day 1; positive control), followed by placebo (days 1-27); or (3) placebo (days -1 to 26), followed by moxifloxacin 400 mg (day 27). No participant had a corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) >500 milliseconds or a change from baseline (dQTcF) >60 milliseconds. The upper limits of the 90%CIs for the differences in least-squares mean difference in dQTcF between amiselimod and placebo on days 13 and 26 were <10 milliseconds. Area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 23.5 hours after dosing and maximum plasma concentration of amiselimod and amiselimod-P (active metabolite) at steady-state concentrations for the 0.8-mg dose on day 26 were approximately double that observed with the 0.4-mg dose on day 13. All adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and no deaths occurred. Amiselimod did not have any clinically relevant effect on the QTcF interval.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".