Pridopidine in early-stage manifest Huntington’s disease: a phase 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huntington's disease (HD) is a rare, neurodegenerative disorder for which only symptomatic treatments are available. The PROOF-HD study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of pridopidine, a selective Sigma-1 receptor agonist, in HD. The primary and key secondary endpoints, change in total functional capacity (TFC) and composite Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (cUHDRS) score at week 65, were not met in the overall population. The TFC least-squares mean difference between pridopidine and placebo was -0.18 (95% confidence interval -0.49 to 0.14; P = 0.26). The cUHDRS least-squares mean difference between pridopidine and placebo was -0.11 (95% confidence interval -0.40 to 0.18; P = 0.45). Sensitivity analysis in a subgroup of participants not treated with antidopaminergic medications at any time demonstrated a consistent pattern favoring pridopidine across multiple measures, including TFC and cUHDRS. Notably, pridopidine 45 mg twice daily demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile. Taken together, pridopidine has the potential to address a critical unmet need in HD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04556656 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".