In Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, Peginterferon Beta-1a Reduces MRI Lesions Following Relapses (P7.256)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate correlations between clinical relapse and MRI lesions in patients receiving subcutaneous peginterferon beta-1a (PEG-IFN) or placebo for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). BACKGROUND: Patients with RRMS receiving subcutaneous PEG-IFN have demonstrated an improved ability to recover clinically from relapses beyond reduction in relapse risk versus placebo. This Phase 3, post-hoc analysis of the ADVANCE study evaluated the correlation between relapses and MRI lesions. DESIGN/METHODS: The ADVANCE 2-year, double-blind study included patients aged 18-65 years with RRMS. This analysis examines correlations between experiencing relapse and the number of MRI lesions by week 48 (new T1-hypointense or new/enlarging T2, compared with baseline). RESULTS: These data include 1012 patients, 512 receiving PEG-IFN dosed every two weeks, and 500 patients receiving placebo. Across the groups, there was a significant correlation between experiencing a relapse prior to, or on week 48 and developing MRI lesions. Particularly in the placebo group, where 87.5[percnt] of patients who experienced a relapse prior to, or on week 48, developed new/enlarging T2 lesions and 73.5[percnt] of patients developed new T1-hypointense lesions. Of those relapsing patients receiving PEG-IFN every two weeks, 69.5[percnt] developed new/enlarging T2 lesions (a 20.6[percnt] [p=0.001] reduction versus placebo) and 56.1[percnt] had developed new T1-hypointense lesions (a 23.7[percnt] [p=0.008] reduction versus placebo). CONCLUSIONS: PEG-IFN provides additional benefits in the ability of patients to recover from relapses, not only clinically, but also radiologically, by resulting in fewer lesions on follow-up MRI in patients experiencing relapses. Whether this represents a true neuroprotective effect at the onset of relapse, or recovery from damage, remains to be explored. These additional findings provide further evidence supporting the concept that PEG-IFN improves recovery from relapses, therefore reducing the risk of further disability progression. Study Sponsored by: Biogen Idec Inc. (Cambridge, MA, USA).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".