Supporting Huntington’s Disease Families Through the Ups and Downs of Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have been turbulent ones for the Huntington's disease (HD) community. Three clinical trials for HD, including the first Phase 3 trial of a potentially disease modifying genetic therapy for HD, were all brought to a halt in March of 2021. 2022 brought more study roadblocks and an additional trial termination. As HD science progresses and larger scale trials become more frequent in the community, HD families are faced with the difficult reality that clinical research rarely results in a new drug hitting the market. To better understand how the HD community can be prepared for the ups and downs that accompany an expanding clinical research pipeline, the Huntington's Disease Society of America (HDSA) spoke with members of the Huntington's Disease Coalition for Patient Engagement (HD-COPE). This group of global advocates led by HDSA and the Huntington's Society of Canada (HSC) collaborates with pharmaceutical companies to ensure that HD voices are represented in the planning of clinical trials. These conversations allowed HDSA to summarize how the HD community can be best supported through the clinical research process in three key areas: engagement, support, and education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".