MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1653590086 · doi:10.1002/mus.24624

Follow‐up nerve conduction studies in CIDP after treatment with IGIV‐C: Comparison of patients with and without subsequent relapse

2015· article· en· W1653590086 on OpenAlexaff
Russell L. Chin, C. Q. Deng, Vera Bril, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Ingemar S. J. Merkies, Peter D. Donofrio, Pieter A. van Doorn, Marinos C. Dalakas, Norman Latov

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineClinical trialNerve conductionPolyradiculoneuropathyGuillain-Barre syndromePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) are not performed routinely before treatment suspension in CIDP, and no data exist regarding their value in predicting clinical relapse. METHODS: Serial EDX (baseline and after IGIV-C therapy) were analyzed from subjects in the ICE clinical trial who responded to IGIV-C treatment and were subsequently re-randomized to placebo in an extension phase. Comparisons were made between subjects who relapsed and those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 55% (6/11) of the Relapse group had an increase in total number of demyelinating findings (DF) versus 8% (1/13) in the No Relapse group (P = 0.023). In the Relapse group, 100% had ≥ 1 new DF and 73% (8/11) had ≥ 4 new DF versus 60% (8/13) and 8% (1/13), respectively, in the No Relapse group. CONCLUSIONS: An increased total number of DF or the occurrence of ≥ 4 new DF may indicate a higher risk of clinical relapse after treatment cessation in IGIV-C-responsive patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207