MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392015136 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2312100

A Phase 3 Trial of Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis

2024· article· en· W4392015136 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon M. Hirschfield, Christopher L. Bowlus, Marlyn J. Mayo, Andreas E. Kremer, John M. Vierling, Kris V. Kowdley, Cynthia Levy, Alejandra Villamil, A. Cetina, Ewa Janczewska, Ehud Zigmond, Sook‐Hyang Jeong, Yusuf Yılmaz, Yiannis Kallis, Christophe Corpechot, Peter Buggisch, Pietro Invernizzi, Maria Carlota Londoño Hurtado, Sandrin C. Bergheanu, Ke Yang, Yun‐Jung Choi, Daria B. Crittenden, Charles A. McWherter

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersCymaBay Therapeutics
KeywordsAgonistGastroenterologyInternal medicineMedicinePrimary (astronomy)ReceptorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for patients with primary biliary cholangitis are limited. Seladelpar, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist, has potential benefits. METHODS: In this phase 3, 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients who had had an inadequate response to or who had a history of unacceptable side effects with ursodeoxycholic acid to receive oral seladelpar at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was a biochemical response, which was defined as an alkaline phosphatase level less than 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level at month 12. Key secondary end points were normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level at month 12 and a change in the score on the pruritus numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst itch imaginable]) from baseline to month 6 among patients with a baseline score of at least 4 (indicating moderate-to-severe pruritus). RESULTS: Of the 193 patients who underwent randomization and treatment, 93.8% received ursodeoxycholic acid as standard-of-care background therapy. A greater percentage of the patients in the seladelpar group than in the placebo group had a biochemical response (61.7% vs. 20.0%; difference, 41.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.7 to 53.4, P<0.001). Normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level also occurred in a greater percentage of patients who received seladelpar than of those who received placebo (25.0% vs. 0%; difference, 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.3 to 33.2, P<0.001). Seladelpar resulted in a greater reduction in the score on the pruritus numerical rating scale than placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline, -3.2 vs. -1.7; least-squares mean difference, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.5 to -0.5, P = 0.005). Adverse events were reported in 86.7% of the patients in the seladelpar group and in 84.6% in the placebo group, and serious adverse events in 7.0% and 6.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with primary biliary cholangitis, the percentage of patients who had a biochemical response and alkaline phosphatase normalization was significantly greater with seladelpar than with placebo. Seladelpar also significantly reduced pruritus among patients who had moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline. The incidence and severity of adverse events were similar in the two groups. (Funded by CymaBay Therapeutics; RESPONSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04620733; EudraCT number, 2020-004348-27.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations235
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207