Review: Escalating immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basic disease-modifying treatment for relapsing forms of active multiple sclerosis (MS) is now available in many countries with high prevalence rates, for this chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. Several lines of evidence support early immunomodulatory treatment with either recombinant interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and positive results from phase III trials encourage start of treatment even in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS). However, currently available drugs for basic therapy are only partially effective and patients may still encounter relapses or disease progression. As treatment-refractory, clinically active MS can quickly lead to irreversible neurological disability there is an urgent need for effective escalating strategies. Patients with suboptimal treatment response to basic therapy have been treated with combination therapies, cytotoxic drugs (such as mitoxantrone and cyclophosphamide) or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Recently, the monoclonal antibody, natalizumab, was added to this armamentarium. None of these strategies have been vigorously evaluated in large randomized, controlled phase III trials with patients who failed basic therapy. Therefore, the decision to escalate immunotherapy is still based on limited evidence. This article will review potential candidates for intensified immunosuppression and call for innovative study designs to better evaluate escalating immunotherapy in MS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".