Introduction - 2nd Dubrovnik International Conference on Multiple Sclerosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The past several years have seen a change of emphasis in the meetings devoted to multiple sclerosis (MS) due to the exciting new developments in the long-term treatment of the disease, giving hope to patients, and new therapeutic tools to their neurologists. Nevertheless, many questions remain regarding the exact pathogenesis and etiological factors of the disease. The matter of MS as a single disease, possibly with different pathogenetic mechanisms and/or different phenotypic expressions, or separate disease entities with diverse genetic characteristics, is still unsettled, as is the nosological situation of the eponymic variants of MS, Marburg’ s, Schilder’ s, Balo’ s and Devic’ s diseases. It is abundantly clear that all recurrent demyelinating conditions are not always MS, so that alternative diagnoses must be considered before initiating immunomodulatory or other forms of long-term treatment. Other important questions that remain unanswered are: will it ever be possible to identify families at risk for the disease by means of MRI and/or sophisticated genetic testing? Is there evidence that a pre-disease condition, the “ MS trait” exists and would its identification be the long-sought means for preventing the development of the disease? Discussions of immunomodulatory and other forms of long term treatment are not only understandable, but also most desirable, since a consensus has not yet been reached regarding many of its aspects, such as choice of specific agents, single versus multiple drugs, and optimum dosage and route of administration. An objective critique of the methodology of therapeutic trials should help treating neurologists better appreciate the impact of the available drugs and those still under investigation. The cost of many of these medications remains very high, adding to the already heavy financial burden of the disease itself on health care systems. Not every neurologist believes that all patients with MS should receive one of the available treatments, and a more thorough understanding of the natural history of the disease may prove critical in choosing the right patient for the right drug, or none at all. Some of these issues were addressed during the First International Dubrovnik Conference on MS in May 2001, and will again be examined with the added experience of two more years. We believe that these unresolved questions were sufficient reasons for convening this Second International Dubrovnik Conference on Multiple Sclerosis and inviting distinguished experts from Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Israel, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the USA to give us the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».