MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116941774 · doi:10.1212/nxg.0000000000200338

NNZ-2591 in Children and Adolescents With Phelan-McDermid Syndrome

2025· article· en· W7116941774 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ann M. Neumeyer, Siddharth Srivastava, J. Lloyd Holder, Mark A. Milad, Liza Squires, Nancy E. Jones, Larry Glass, E. Berry-Kravis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZynerba PharmaceuticalsMallinckrodt PharmaceuticalsPTC TherapeuticsUltragenyx PharmaceuticalNational Institutes of HealthRush UniversityAveXisBiogen
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)MEDLINECongenital diseaseEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Phelan-McDermid syndrome (PMS) is a rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorder with no currently approved treatments. NNZ-2591, a synthetic analog of the insulin-like growth factor 1 metabolite cyclic glycine-proline, was evaluated in children and adolescents with PMS in a phase 2, multisite, open-label clinical trial. Methods: < 0.05 indicating significance. Results: > 300 μg ⋅ h/mL experienced improvements in the PMS-specific CGI of Improvement scores. Discussion: For children and adolescents with PMS, NNZ-2591 appeared generally safe, with clinicians and caregivers reporting meaningful improvements in important symptoms of PMS. The benefit-risk and pharmacokinetic profiles support continued evaluation of NNZ-2591 for PMS. Trial Registration Information: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05025241. Submitted August 24, 2021. First participant enrolled on August 8, 2022.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207