Timing of SMN replacement therapies in mouse models of spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mutations in the Survival of Motor Neuron 1 gene lead to a loss of survival motor neuron protein in patients with spinal muscular atrophy. Revolutionary advances in gene therapy have led to survival motor neuron-replacement therapies that significantly prolong life expectancy and improve neuromuscular function. However, accumulating evidence suggests that the timing of survival motor neuron-replacement therapies is a critical determinant of success. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all pre-clinical studies testing survival motor neuron replacement therapies in mouse models of spinal muscular atrophy to assess the impact of timing of delivery on therapeutic effectiveness. We incorporated four databases in this pre-registered study (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020200180): EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were; primary research article, a measure of survival analysis, use of survival motor neuron mouse model and evaluation of survival motor neuron-targeting therapy. Exclusion criteria included; use of therapies not known to directly target survival motor neuron, genetic manipulations and/or lack of appropriate controls. We screened papers using the SyRF platform. The main outcome we assessed was survival in treated groups compared to untreated groups. We performed meta-analysis of survival using median survival ratio and the random effects model and measured heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess treatment efficacy based on timing of intervention (embryonic delivery, day of birth, postnatal day 2 and postnatal day 3 or later) and treatment type. If detailed in the studies, body weight compared to untreated spinal muscular atrophy models and motor neuron number were included as secondary outcomes for meta-analysis. 3469 studies were initially identified, with 78 ultimately included. Survival motor neuron-replacement therapies significantly affected survival in favour of treatment by a factor of 1.20 (95% CI 1.10–1.30, P < 0.001) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 95%). Timing of treatment was a significant source of heterogeneity (P < 0.01), with earlier treatment having a greater impact on survival. When stratified by type of treatment, earlier treatment continued to have the strongest effect with viral vector replacement therapy and antisense oligonucleotide therapy. Secondary outcome measures of body weight and spinal motor neuron counts were also positively associated with early treatment. Earlier delivery of survival motor neuron replacement therapies is therefore a key determinant of treatment efficacy in spinal muscular atrophy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".