ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
A computational tool to optimize clinical trial parameter selection in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A practical guide and case studies.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A computational tool to optimize clinical trial parameter selection in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A practical guide and case studies.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- The Advance of In Silico Evidence to Transform Pediatric Drug Development for Rare Diseases.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare pediatric disease, presents numerous challenges when designing clinical trials, mainly due to the scarcity of available trial participants and the heterogeneity of disease progression. A quantitative clinical trial simulator (CTS) has been developed based on previously published five disease progression models describing each of the longitudinal changes in the velocity at which individuals can complete specified timed functional tests, frequently used as clinical trial efficacy endpoints (supine-stand, 4-stair climb, and 10 m walk/run test or 30-foot walk/run test), as well as each of the longitudinal changes in forced vital capacity and North Star Ambulatory Assessment total score. The model-based CTS allows researchers to optimize the selection of numerous trial parameters for designing trials for the five functional measures commonly used as endpoints in DMD clinical trials. This case report serves as a demonstration of the tool's functionality while providing an easy-to-follow guide for users to reference when preparing simulations of their own design. Two case studies, using input selection based on previous DMD clinical trials, provide realistic examples of how the tool can help optimize clinical trial design without the risk of decreasing statistical significance. This optimization allows researchers to mitigate the risk of designing trials that may be longer, larger, or more inclusive/exclusive than necessary.
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.