MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389683409 · doi:10.1186/s13195-023-01356-w

NeuroEPO plus (NeuralCIM®) in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s clinical syndrome: the ATHENEA randomized clinical trial

2023· article· en· W4389683409 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saily Sosa, Giosmany Bringas, Nelky Urrutia, Ana Ibis Peñalver, Danay López, Evelio González Dalmau, Ana Fernández, Zenaida Milagros Hernández, Ariel Vina-Rodrı́guez, Yamilé Peña, Juan Felipe Batista, Carmen Valenzuela, Kalet León, Tania Crombet, Teresita Rodríguez, Leslie Pérez, Yolanda Álvarez, M.C. García Rodríguez, Nairim Vázquez, Mirelys Rodríguez, Yaniuris González, María Alejandra Ramos, Yosvany López, M. A. Bedolla Hernández, Lázaro Madruga, D. Carmona, Julio E. Acosta, M. López, Deiry Amaro, Olga L. Baños, Mariela Ortega Álvarez, Melany Betancourt, Liana Padrón, E. Ramirez Chavez, Isabel García, Yaquelin Morgan, Moraima Charles, Mónica González, Marianela de la C. Rodríguez, Yeniley León, Joe Michel López, Yanelis Acosta, T. Virués, Laura Pérez, Karen León‐Arcia, Rubén Periche, Adonisbel Valero, Yoelvis César Pozo, Greysi Horta, Rodobaldo Quesada, Elvia Luz, Leonel Torres, Susana Romero, María E Rodríguez, Daymys Estévez

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s Research & Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGastroenterologyCognitive impairmentDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: NeuroEPO plus is a recombinant human erythropoietin without erythropoietic activity and shorter plasma half-life due to its low sialic acid content. NeuroEPO plus prevents oxidative damage, neuroinflammation, apoptosis and cognitive deficit in an Alzheimer's disease (AD) models. The aim of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of neuroEPO plus. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2-3 trial involving participants ≥ 50 years of age with mild-to-moderate AD clinical syndrome. Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 0.5 or 1.0 mg of neuroEPO plus or placebo intranasally 3 times/week for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the 11-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog11) score from baseline to 48 weeks (range, 0 to 70; higher scores indicate greater impairment). Secondary outcomes included CIBIC+, GDS, MoCA, NPI, Activities of Daily Living Scales, cerebral perfusion, and hippocampal volume. RESULTS: A total of 174 participants were enrolled and 170 were treated (57 in neuroEPO plus 0.5 mg, 56 in neuroEPO plus 1.0 mg and 57 in placebo group). Mean age, 74.0 years; 121 (71.2%) women and 85% completed the trial. The median change in ADAS-Cog11 score at 48 weeks was -3.0 (95% CI, -4.3 to -1.7) in the 0.5 mg neuroEPO plus group, -4.0 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.1) in the 1.0 mg neuroEPO plus group and 4.0 (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.1) in the placebo group. The difference of neuroEPO plus 0.5 mg vs. placebo was 7.0 points (95% CI, 4.5-9.5) P = 0.000 and between the neuroEPO plus 1.0 mg vs. placebo was 8.0 points (95% CI, 5.2-10.8) P = 0.000. NeuroEPO plus treatment induced a statistically significant improvement in some of clinical secondary outcomes vs. placebo including CIBIC+, GDS, MoCA, NPI, and the brain perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease clinical syndrome, neuroEPO plus improved the cognitive evaluation at 48 weeks, with a very good safety profile. Larger trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of neuroEPO plus in Alzheimer's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://rpcec.sld.cu Identifier: RPCEC00000232.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.064 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s Research & TherapySame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207