MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412676182 · doi:10.1080/23995270.2025.2535273

A plain language summary of the phase 1/2 study of AAV5-hRKp.RPGR (botaretigene sparoparvovec) in people with RPGR-associated X-linked retinitis pigmentosa

2025· article· en· W4412676182 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Michaelides, Cagri G. Besirli, James Bainbridge

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Rare Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersJohnson and JohnsonMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsRetinitis pigmentosaPhase (matter)MedicinePhysicsOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plain Language SummaryWhat is this summary about?This plain language summary describes the results of a study published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology in 2024. The study looked at a new gene therapy for X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP), a severe inherited eye disease caused by a change in the retinitis pigmentosa GTPase regulator (RPGR for short) gene. Changes in RPGR cause the breakdown of cells in the retina of the eye, leading to significant vision problems. AAV5hRKp.RPGR (botaretigene sparoparvovec; bota-vec) is an investigational therapy designed to deliver a working copy of the RPGR gene. This may help repair the retina and improve vision in XLRP. In this three-part study, researchers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of different doses of bota-vec in participants with XLRP over 52 weeks.What were the key results?A total of 45 participants received bota-vec gene therapy. Thirteen participants started treatment at Week 26, which allowed researchers to compare treated and untreated participants. Of the 45 treated participants, 37 experienced at least one side effect before Week 26. Most side effects were considered mild or moderate and related to the surgery required to receive the therapy. Participants who received bota-vec had improvements in vision and function of the retina compared with participants who were untreated until Week 26.What do the results mean?Participants generally found that bota-vec had an acceptable safety profile and was well tolerated, and it trended toward visual improvements. These positive results supported investigation of bota-vec in a larger study in participants with XLRP.How to say (download PDF and double click sound icon to play sound)…Botaretigene sparoparvovec: boh-tah-REH-tih-jeen spar-oh-PAR-voh-vekPhotoreceptor: foh-toh-ree-SEP-terRetina: RET-uh-nuhRetinitis pigmentosa: reh-tuh-NIGH-tis pig-men-TOH-suhThis is an abstract of the Plain Language Summary of Publication article.View the full Plain Language Summary PDF of this article to read the full-textLink to original article hereTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03252847.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1270.022

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture Rare DiseasesSame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207