MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410591077 · doi:10.1080/13543784.2025.2510664

A randomized, Phase I study of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of BI 764198, a transient receptor potential channel 6 (TRPC6) inhibitor, in healthy Japanese men

2025· article· en· W4410591077 on OpenAlexaff
Takuma Yonemura, Akiko Sarashina, Yoshifumi Tachibana, Silke Retlich, Nima Soleymanlou

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Investigational Drugs · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicIon Channels and Receptors
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
FundersBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsTolerabilityPharmacokineticsTRPC6PharmacologyTransient receptor potential channelMedicineReceptorInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: BI 764198 is a selective, oral transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily C, member 6 inhibitor under investigation for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: = 9) as a single dose then multiple daily dosing for 2 weeks. Primary endpoint: participants with drug-related adverse events (DRAEs); secondary endpoints: pharmacokinetic. RESULTS: DRAEs were reported in 20.5% (9/44) of participants (total BI 764198 21.2% [7/33]; placebo 18.2% [2/11]), mostly diarrhea (total BI 764198 15.2% [5/33]; placebo 18.2% [2/11]) and headache (BI 764198 80 mg 11.1% [1/9]; BI 764198 160 mg 33.3% [3/9]). BI 764198 exposure increased near dose proportionally to 80 mg and was slightly higher than anticipated with 160 mg. Pharmacokinetics were similar in Asians and non-Asians after accounting for body weight. Limitations include small sample size per dose and short trial duration. CONCLUSIONS: BI 764198 was well tolerated; exposure increased near dose proportionally to 80 mg, as previously observed in predominantly White volunteers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on Clinical Trials.gov, identifier NCT04665700.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Investigational DrugsSame topicIon Channels and ReceptorsFrench-language works237,207