MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The neuropsychiatry of multiple sclerosis: a review of recent developments

2007· review· en· W147832692 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Ghaffar, Anthony Feinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychiatryMultiple sclerosisNeurosciencePsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to summarize the current literature on the neuropsychiatry of multiple sclerosis (MS). RECENT FINDINGS: Data from community samples have supported earlier findings from tertiary referral centres of high rates of depression in MS patients. Neuroimaging offers important clues as to the pathogenesis of depression, but psychosocial factors cannot be ignored and emerge as equally important predictors. Cognitive-behavioural therapy is an effective treatment, rivalling standard dosing of sertraline in patients with depression. An allied disorder--pseudobulbar affect--occurs in up to 10% of MS patients and responds well to a combination of dextromethorphan and quinidine. Cognitive dysfunction affects approximately 40% of MS patients. Markers of cerebral atrophy have emerged as more important correlates of impaired cognition than lesion volume. Moreover, functional MRI studies have demonstrated the brain's ability to compensate, in part, for damage. Should the disease burden be too severe, however, compensatory mechanisms fail and cognitive deficits increase accordingly. SUMMARY: Neuropsychiatric abnormalities are common in MS patients. No aspect of mentation is spared. Advances in neuroimaging are increasing our understanding of the pathogenesis of these disorders. Translating these findings into improved methods of treatment for patients presents researchers with pressing challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations152
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207