Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41787540›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

How to improve statistical power in a trial with SCA2 patients using natural history data.

Maylis Tran, Pierre-Emmanuel Poulet, Emilien Petit, Alexandra Durr, Thomas Klockgether, Tetsuo Ashizawa, Giulia Coarelli, Sophie Tezenas du Montcel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maylis TranSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France. maylis.tran@icm-institute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-8150-9512
Pierre-Emmanuel PouletSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France.
Emilien PetitSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France.
Alexandra DurrSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France.
Thomas KlockgetherGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany.
Tetsuo AshizawaWeill Cornell Medicine at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Giulia CoarelliSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France.
Sophie Tezenas du MontcelSorbonne University, Paris Brain Institute (ICM), INSERM, INRIA, CNRS, APHP, Paris, France. sophie.tezenas@aphp.fr.

Funding

Supplementary funding for U01NS104326 Clinical Trial Readiness for SCA1 and SCA3 (“READISCA”)U01NS104326 · NINDS · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ASHIZAWA, TETSUO, DURR, ALEXANDRA · 2018 to 2022
$6.1M
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) - Investissements d'avenir ANR-10-IAIHU-06National Institute of Health NIH RC1 NS068897NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS104326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard for evaluating treatment effects, as they minimize biases. However, they raise ethical concerns regarding participant exposure to potentially ineffective interventions. For rare neurodegenerative diseases, these trials are further challenged by the limited number of patients. Our goal is to leverage recent advancements in statistical methodologies to enhance the statistical power of these trials. We aim to test these methods to the ATRIL study, which evaluated the efficacy of riluzole in patients with dominant cerebellar ataxia SCA2. We trained a progression model on natural history data to capture the progression of the disease, using Disease Course Mapping. We explored the prediction-powered inference for clinical trials method (PPCT), which leverages the prognostic scores predicted by this model, to offer an unbiased comparison between the observed progression in treated patients and the predicted progression if they had not been treated. Then, we compared PPCT to the prognostic covariate adjustment and the Hybrid Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (H-AIPW) methods, which respectively incorporate the prognostic score to the analysis of covariance or to the Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) method. These methods were applied to the ATRIL trial, which included treated and placebo SCA2 patients, using a model trained on patients from US and European cohorts (EUROSCA, SPATAX, CRC-SCA). Disease Course Mapping models accurately forecasted the prognostic scores, namely the predicted one-year SARA score progression, with correlations around 0.15. The treatment effect estimator had a lower variance using the PPCT (0.342), prognostic covariate adjustment (0.344), and H-AIPW (0.348) methods compared to the classical variance (0.407). Notably, PPCT would reduce the sample size by 14.5% (6 patients). Using the PPCT estimator of the average treatment effect, the same variance reported in the ATRIL paper could have been achieved with 39 patients instead of 45. Our study addresses the challenge of statistical power in clinical trials and explores new methodological advancements. Applying the PPCT, prognostic covariate adjustment, or H-AIPW methods helps reduce confidence intervals, enhance statistical power, or decrease the required sample size for the trial by leveraging information from external data. Although the ATRIL's trial conclusion on riluzole remains unchanged, these methods could have enabled the selection of fewer patients, which is crucial for rare neurodegenerative diseases.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignRiluzoleSpinocerebellar AtaxiasData Interpretation, StatisticalDisease ProgressionHumansModels, StatisticalNeuroprotective AgentsTreatment OutcomeNeuroprotective AgentsRiluzoleClinical trial designDigital twinsExternal dataNatural history dataPrediction-powered inference for clinical trials (PPCT)Prognostic covariate adjustmentPrognostic score methodologyStatistical power increase

Identifiers

PMID41787540
PMCPMC13072621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.