ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024
Large-scale screening of clinical assessments to distinguish between states in the Integrated HD Progression Model (IHDPM).
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding the sensitivity and utility of clinical assessments across different HD stages is important for study/trial endpoint selection and clinical assessment development. The Integrated HD Progression Model (IHDPM) characterizes the complex symptom progression of HD and separates the disease into nine ordered disease states. Objective: To generate a temporal map of discriminatory clinical measures across the IHDPM states. Methods: We applied the IHDPM to all HD individuals in an integrated longitudinal HD dataset derived from four observational studies, obtaining disease state assignment for each study visit. Using large-scale screening, we estimated Cohen's effect sizes to rank the discriminative power of 2,472 clinical measures for separating observations in disease state pairs. Individual trajectories through IHDPM states were examined. Discriminative analyses were limited to individuals with observations in both states of the pairs compared ( Results: Discriminative clinical measures were heterogeneous across the HD life course. UHDRS items were frequently identified as the best state pair discriminators, with UHDRS Motor items - most notably TMS - showing the highest discriminatory power between the early-disease states and early post-transition period states. UHDRS functional items emerged as strong discriminators from the transition period and on. Cognitive assessments showed good discriminative power between all state pairs examined, excepting state 1 vs. 2. Several non-UHDRS assessments were also flagged as excellent state discriminators for specific disease phases (e.g., SF-12). For certain state pairs, single assessment items other than total/summary scores were highlighted as having excellent discriminative power. Conclusion: By providing ranked quantitative scores indicating discriminatory ability of thousands of clinical measures between specific pairs of IHDPM states, our results will aid clinical trial designers select the most effective outcome measures tailored to their study cohort. Our observations may also assist in the development of end points targeting specific phases in the disease life course, through providing specific conceptual foci.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.