Clinical Trial Proposal

Mito Map Correlation Trial

A proposed observational validation study testing whether the model-derived Energy Score from Mito Map correlates with the newly built Measured Function Score, which combines grip strength, 5x sit-to-stand, chair-support adjustments, and fatigue burden.

Study goal: test whether a mechanistic mitochondrial model and a real-world functional measurement bundle move together across patients and over time. The first question is correlation. The second question is whether one score predicts future movement in the other.
Primary Aim

Correlation

Energy vs Measured

Test whether higher Energy Score values are associated with higher Measured Function Score values at the same visit.

Secondary Aim

Tracking

Change Over Time

Test whether change in one score tracks change in the other across repeated visits.

Exploratory Aim

Prediction

Baseline Forecasting

Test whether baseline Energy Score predicts later function and whether baseline measured function predicts later model output.

Theory

Scientific Rationale

The Energy Score is a mechanistic estimate built from age, mutation context, graph burden, phenotype burden, patient-state burden, interventions, and optionally labs. The Measured Function Score is an observed output score built from actual performance and symptom burden. In theory, if the mechanistic model is capturing real biologic reserve, it should correlate with observed performance and patient-reported fatigue.

This trial treats the Measured Function Score as a pragmatic external anchor. It is not a gold standard for mitochondrial function, but it is a low-cost, repeatable, clinically interpretable output bundle. If the two scores correlate moderately well, that would support convergent validity. If they diverge, that tells you where the model may need recalibration or where observed function may be influenced by factors the graph does not yet capture.

The core scientific idea is not that the model should perfectly replace clinical performance testing. It is that a mechanistic network score should show measurable convergence with objective and semi-objective function if it is modeling something biologically real.
Design

Proposed Study Design

Procedures

What Happens At Each Visit

Analysis

How To Analyze It

A realistic early target is not perfect agreement. Even a moderate, reproducible correlation would be valuable for a first validation study because the two scores are measuring different layers of the same problem.
Critique

Critique And Limitations

The strongest critique is that this is initially a validation of one provisional score against another provisional score. The way to make that defensible is to be explicit, pre-specify the rules, and then use the data to improve both.
Strengths

Why This Trial Is Still Worth Doing

Sources

Literature Basis

Montano et al. 2020: Primary mitochondrial myopathy clinical features and outcome measures

Directly relevant because it includes 5XSST and Fatigue Severity Scale among outcome measures in PMM.

Montano et al. 2022: 12-month follow-up results of an Italian PMM cohort

Supports longitudinal use of 5XSST and fatigue measures in mitochondrial disease.

Muñoz-Bermejo et al. 2021: FTSST reliability systematic review and meta-analysis

Supports the excellent reliability of the five-times sit-to-stand test across adult populations.

Albalwi et al. 2023: systematic review of five-times sit-to-stand procedures

Supports standardization choices for how the chair-rise test should be run and interpreted.

Soysal et al. 2021: umbrella review of handgrip strength and health outcomes

Supports grip strength as a broad marker of health and functional risk, even if not mitochondria-specific.

Dodds et al. 2022: sex- and age-specific centile curves for grip and sit-to-stand

Supports the use of sex-specific reference curves for grip and 5x sit-to-stand scaling.

FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a randomized trial?

No. The proposed first study is observational. The goal is to validate correlation and tracking before running interventional studies.

Why not validate against CPET or 31P-MRS instead?

Those would be stronger biologic anchors, but they are much harder and more expensive to deploy. This first trial is designed to be feasible and fast.

What correlation would count as promising?

Even a moderate, stable correlation would be useful at this stage, especially if change over time also tracks in the expected direction.

Could two people have the same measured score for different biologic reasons?

Yes. That is one reason the mechanistic graph still matters. The Measured Function Score tells you how the person is functioning, while Mito Map is trying to explain why.

What would success look like?

Success would mean the model-derived score shows meaningful convergence with observed function, highlights mismatched cases worth studying, and gives you data to recalibrate the system.