MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406099205 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.4519

An Acetylcholine M<sub>1</sub> Receptor–Positive Allosteric Modulator (TAK-071) in Parkinson Disease With Cognitive Impairment

2025· article· en· W4406099205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niraj M. Shanbhag, Jaya Padmanabhan, Zheng Zhang, Brian Harel, Hongxia Jia, Tairmae Kangarloo, Wei Yin, Ariel V. Dowling, Antonio Laurenza, Polyna Khudyakov, Kevin Galinsky, Robert D. Latzman, Tanya Simuni, Daniel Weintraub, Fay B. Horak, Cindy Lustig, Paul Maruff, Arthur A. Simen

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentParkinson's diseaseAllosteric modulatorCognitionDiseaseMedicineNeuroscienceAllosteric regulationAcetylcholinePsychologyReceptorPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Fall risk and cognitive impairment are prevalent and burdensome in Parkinson disease (PD), requiring efficacious, well-tolerated treatment. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of TAK-071, a muscarinic acetylcholine M1 positive allosteric modulator, in participants with PD, increased fall risk, and cognitive impairment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial was conducted from October 21, 2020, to February 27, 2023, at 19 sites in the US. Participants included patients aged 40 to 85 years with a diagnosis of PD, with at least 1 fall in the prior 12 months, with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 11 to 26, and receiving stable antiparkinsonian medications and no acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Intervention: One-to-one randomization to once-daily oral TAK-071 or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by washout and 6 weeks of crossover treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change from baseline in gait variability (stride time variability [STV]) during a 2-minute walk test with or without cognitive load. The secondary efficacy end point was change from baseline in a cognitive composite score consisting of tests of attention, executive function, and memory. Results: Among the 54 participants included in the analysis, 45 (83%) were male, mean (SD) age was 69.7 (6.9) years, and median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 24 (range, 17-26). After 6 weeks of treatment, the primary outcome was negative: the change from baseline in STV did not differ between participants receiving TAK-071 or placebo, with cognitive load (geometric mean ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.94-1.41; P = .16) or without cognitive load (geometric mean ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18; P = .78). TAK-071 improved the secondary efficacy outcome (cognitive composite score) vs placebo. The least squares mean difference of the change from baseline was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.05-0.38; P = .01). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 18 of 49 participants (37%) while receiving placebo and in 19 of 53 (36%) while receiving TAK-071. Four participants (8%) receiving TAK-071 had adverse events resulting in withdrawal of study drug; 4 had gastrointestinal tract adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, in participants with PD, risk for falls, and cognitive impairment, TAK-071 was well-tolerated. The treatment did not improve the primary outcome of gait variability, but did improve cognition compared with placebo. Larger and longer studies in more diverse populations are needed to better understand the safety and efficacy of TAK-071 in broader populations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04334317.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207