Progression of atypical parkinsonian syndromes: PROSPECT-M-UK study implications for clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of clinical trials of disease-modifying agents for neurodegenerative disease highlights the need for evidence-based end point selection. Here we report the longitudinal PROSPECT-M-UK study of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), multiple system atrophy (MSA) and related disorders, to compare candidate clinical trial end points. In this multicentre UK study, participants were assessed with serial questionnaires, motor examination, neuropsychiatric and MRI assessments at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Participants were classified by diagnosis at baseline and study end, into Richardson syndrome, PSP-subcortical (PSP-parkinsonism and progressive gait freezing subtypes), PSP-cortical (PSP-frontal, PSP-speech and language and PSP-CBS subtypes), MSA-parkinsonism, MSA-cerebellar, CBS with and without evidence of Alzheimer's disease pathology and indeterminate syndromes. We calculated annual rate of change, with linear mixed modelling and sample sizes for clinical trials of disease-modifying agents, according to group and assessment type. Two hundred forty-three people were recruited [117 PSP, 68 CBS, 42 MSA and 16 indeterminate; 138 (56.8%) male; age at recruitment 68.7 ± 8.61 years]. One hundred and fifty-nine completed the 6-month assessment (82 PSP, 27 CBS, 40 MSA and 10 indeterminate) and 153 completed the 12-month assessment (80 PSP, 29 CBS, 35 MSA and nine indeterminate). Questionnaire, motor examination, neuropsychiatric and neuroimaging measures declined in all groups, with differences in longitudinal change between groups. Neuroimaging metrics would enable lower sample sizes to achieve equivalent power for clinical trials than cognitive and functional measures, often achieving N < 100 required for 1-year two-arm trials (with 80% power to detect 50% slowing). However, optimal outcome measures were disease-specific. In conclusion, phenotypic variance within PSP, CBS and MSA is a major challenge to clinical trial design. Our findings provide an evidence base for selection of clinical trial end points, from potential functional, cognitive, clinical or neuroimaging measures of disease progression.
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 | 0.098 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".