ArticleBMC medicine2025
Exploring synthetic controls in rare diseases with a proof of concept in spinal cord injury.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuccessfully completing clinical trials for rare and heterogeneous disorders, like spinal cord injuries (SCI), remains challenging, thereby reducing the ability to test and translate promising preclinical findings. We propose synthetic controls, derived from data-driven predictions of recovery in patients undergoing standard treatments, to mitigate these challenges, in particular related to patient recruitment.
methodsBased on data from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) and the Sygen trial, we construct synthetic controls from personalized predictions of neurological recovery of sequences of segmental motor scores. A total of six architectures (linear, tree, and deep learning models) are compared. We demonstrate the applicability of synthetic controls through a simulation framework modeling the randomization process in a clinical trial and a case study that re-evaluates the recently completed Nogo Inhibition in SCI (NISCI) trial as a single-arm trial post hoc.
resultsThe primary dataset included 4196 patients from EMSCI and 587 patients from the Sygen trial for external validation. We identified a convolutional neural network as the best-performing architecture to predict segmental motor score sequences, achieving a median root mean squared error below the neurological level of injury of 0.55. Our trial simulations demonstrate that synthetic controls are a viable alternative to randomization, as the proposed solution reduces intercohort heterogeneity and leads to no significant differences with randomized controls in our case study reassessing a clinical trial.
conclusionsWe provide a comprehensive benchmark of data-driven prediction architectures for neurological recovery after SCI. Apart from offering individual patients a specific recovery prediction, these models constitute the basis for synthetic controls. Using real-world data from a completed trial in SCI, we show that synthetic controls could mitigate the challenges of small cohorts and patient recruitment in rare disorders, offering the opportunity to maximize the number of patients receiving an investigative treatment. GITHUB REPOSITORY: https://gitlab.ethz.ch/BMDSlab/publications/sci/sci-in-silico-trials .
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.