Correction to: Two‑year efficacy and safety of risdiplam in patients with type 2 or non‑ambulant type 3 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The corrected details are given below for your reading. In figure 1, there is an error in the n numbers below the graph in Panel 1b for the placebo group. The n numbers underneath Panel 1b should be 58 58 50. There is an error within Fig. 4. The dashed lines at ~ − 1.4 should be at 0. They have been moved downwards and are no longer in the correct place. The corrected Figs. 1 and 4 are given in the following page. (Figure presented.) (Figure presented.) Change from baseline in MFM32 total score in patients treated with risdiplam for up to 24 months and those who previously received placebo until study month 12. aThirty-one percent (55/180) of the SUNFISH intent-to-treat population were 2–5 years old at baseline. b± 95% CI. cBaseline is the last measurement prior to the first dose of risdiplam or placebo. dData cut-off: 30 Sep 2020. eData cut-off: 6 Sep 2019. fPatients in the placebo arm received placebo for 12 months followed by risdiplam treatment for 12 months. gNumber of patients with valid results = number of patients with an available total score (result) at respective time points. Intent-to-treat patients. hPatients in the placebo arm received placebo for 12 months followed by risdiplam treatment for 12 months. Placebo period not shown in this graph. CI confidence interval, MFM32 32-item motor function measure Change in caregiver- and patient-reported SMAIS upper limb total score from baseline in patients receiving risdiplam for up to 24 months and those who previously received placebo up to study month 12. a± 95% CI. Baseline is the last measurement prior to the first dose of risdiplam or placebo. bData cut-off: 30 Sep 2020. cData cut-off: 6 Sep 2019. dPatients in the placebo arm received placebo for 12 months followed by risdiplam treatment for 12 months. Risdiplam period not shown in this graph. eNumber of patients with valid results = number of patients with an available total score (result) at respective time points. Intent-to-treat patients. SMAIS scores range from 0 to 44 following rescoring to a 0–2 response scale for each item. Higher scores indicate greater independence in completing daily activities. CI confidence interval, SMA spinal muscular atrophy, SMAIS SMA Independence Scale, SMAIS-ULM SMA Independence Scale-Upper Limb Module.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".