Rationale, design and critical end points for the Riluzole in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (RISCIS): a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled parallel multi-center trial
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Riluzole is a sodium channel-blocking agent used in treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Canadian and Australian authorities, and in many other countries. A phase I trial of riluzole for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) provided safety and pharmacokinetic data and suggested neuroprotective benefits. A phase IIB/III double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) started in January 2014 (https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01597518). This article describes the pathophysiological rationale, preclinical experience and design of the phase IIB/III RCT of Riluzole in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (RISCIS). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the superiority of riluzole, at a dose of 100 mg BID in the first 24 h followed by 50 mg BID for the following 13 days post injury, compared with placebo in improving neurological motor outcomes in patients with C4-C8 level, International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury Examination (ISNCSCI) grade A, B or C acute (within 12 h post injury) SCI. SETTING: Acute trauma centers worldwideMethods:A double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled RCT will enroll 351 participants randomized 1:1 to riluzole and placebo. The primary end point is the change between 180 days and baseline in ISNCSCI Motor Score. This study has 90% power to detect a change of nine points in ISNCSCI Motor Score at one-sided α=0.025. RESULTS: Currently enrolling in 11 centers. CONCLUSION: This study will provide class I evidence regarding the safety and neuroprotective efficacy of riluzole in patients with acute cervical SCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it