Protocol for Safety and Efficacy of MLC901 (NeuroAiD II) in Patients With Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial (ANDROMEDA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability, affecting approximately 69 million individuals each year worldwide. A significant portion of TBI research has focused on treatments for neuroprotection and/or neurorecovery, with most failing to transition to successful clinical applications despite promising animal/in vitro study results. MLC901 (NeuroAiD II), with origins from a traditional Chinese medicine, has been shown to exhibit both neuroprotective and neuroregenerative properties in in vitro and animal studies for stroke and TBI. Clinical trials have demonstrated its safety with significant improvements in some functional outcome and cognitive domain measures. The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of MLC901 (NeuroAiD II) vs placebo in adult patients with moderate TBI. METHODS: This is a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial that aims to enroll 120 adult patients with moderate TBI receiving standard of care in 2 arms: MLC901 vs placebo for a treatment period of 6 months with a further follow-up of 3 months. The total duration of the study is 9 months. The primary end point is Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) at 6 months. Other assessments include mortality at 6 months, GOS-E, Glasgow Coma Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Filipino Version, Frontal Assessment Battery Conflicting Instructions and Go-No-Go, Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptom Questionnaire, Barthel Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Health related Quality of life (EQ-5D) at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. Cerebral swelling at baseline and at 1 and 2 weeks will also be documented. Adverse events and drug compliance will also be monitored. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: We expect to find a significant improvement in functional and cognitive outcomes in patients who were given MLC901. DISCUSSION: Previous studies on the effect of MLC901 in adult patients with moderate TBI showed positive results; However, these studies are limited by the small number of patients. This study will establish a more definitive role of MLC901 in improving functional and cognitive outcomes in patients with moderate TBI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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".