MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416701854 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.101021

A Comparison of Randomizing Either One Eye or Both Eyes in Clinical Trials for Stargardt Disease Type 1

2025· article· en· W4416701854 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsStargardt diseaseClinical trialDiseaseEye diseaseABCA4

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Designing a clinical trial for rare diseases such as Stargardt disease type 1 is challenging due to the limited patient population. In traditional clinical trial designs for inherited retinal diseases, often only 1 eye of each patient is used as the treated eye or the sham, disregarding half of the available eyes.This study explores a trial design in which both eyes are included, with the fellow eye serving as the control, maximizing the use of available data and enhancing statistical power. Design: Retrospective analysis of natural history data to conduct sample size calculations. Participants: Patients with genetically solved Stargardt disease type 1 who had at least 2 fundus autofluorescence measurements obtained within 5 years of each other. Retrospective data of 164 patients were included for analysis. Methods: The required sample sizes for 1-eye and paired-eye study designs were calculated using retrospective natural history data on the progression of definitely decreased autofluorescence quantified from fundus autofluorescence imaging. Main Outcome Measures: Required sample size for a clinical trial. Results: Sample size calculations showed that 170 patients are needed for a 2-year clinical trial with a 1-eye design, decreasing to 99 patients for a 5-year trial. When using a paired-eye design, 64 patients are needed in a 2-year trial, decreasing to 28 patients in a 5-year trial. When using a paired-eye design and requiring definitely decreased autofluorescence atrophy in both eyes at inclusion, 37 patients were needed in a 2-year trial, decreasing to 16 patients in a 5-year trial. Conclusions: Using a paired-eye design for a clinical trial in Stargardt disease type 1, with definitely decreased autofluorescence atrophy growth rate as the primary end point, is more efficient than a 1-eye design. Implementing additional inclusion criteria, such as requiring definitely decreased autofluorescence atrophy in both eyes at baseline, further reduces the number of patients needed to achieve sufficient statistical power. This approach enhances the feasibility for trials in Stargardt disease type 1 where patient availability is limited. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.328 · 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