MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1783645229 · doi:10.5114/aoms.2010.13901

Original research A meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of natalizumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis

2010· article· en· W1783645229 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Medical Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIran National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineNatalizumabTolerabilityMultiple sclerosisMeta-analysisInternal medicineOncologyImmunologyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Natalizumab is a new humanized monoclonal antibody used in multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of this drug in relapsing MS. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies that investigated the efficacy and/or tolerability of natalizumab in MS. Data were collected from 1966 to 2008 (up to October). MATERIAL AND METHODS: THE SEARCH TERMS WERE: "multiple sclerosis" or "MS" and "natalizumab". "Mean change in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)", "number of patients with at least one relapse", and "number of patients with at least one new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesion" were the key outcomes of interest for assessment of efficacy. "Any adverse events", "serious adverse events", "death", and "withdrawal because of adverse events" were the key outcomes for tolerability. Among existing trials, four randomized placebo controlled clinical trials met our criteria and were included. RESULTS: Pooled relative risk for at least one relapse in four trials including all doses was 0.7, with a non-significant RR (95% CI: 0.42-1.17, p = 0. 17). Summary RR for at least one relapse in two trials in which doses of 3 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg or 300 mg every 4 weeks were administered gave a value of 0.5 asa significant RR (95% CI: 0.42-0.61, p < 0.0001). The summary RR for at least one new Gd-enhancing lesion was 0.22, a non-significant RR (95% CI: 0.05-1.01, p = 0.051). Three deaths were reported in the natalizumab group. Comparing adverse events between natalizumab and placebo yielded a non-significant RR of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.01, p = 0.34) for any adverse events (n = 3), and a significant RR of 0.39 (95% CI: 0.29-0.52, p < 0.0001) for serious adverse events (n = 2). The summary RR for withdrawal due to adverse events by natalizumab vs. placebo therapy between two trials was 1.43, a non-significant RR (95% CI: 0.68-3.02, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that using 3 or 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks is the best method of administration of natalizumab for preventing relapse and occurrence of new Gd-enhancing lesions. The current data on the efficacy and safety of natalizumab are insufficient to reach a convincing conclusion and thus further clinical trials are still needed.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.164 · 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