High Dose Oral Steroids Commonly Used to Treat Relapses in Canadian MS Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoid treatment improves the speed of functional recovery of acute multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses but has not been shown to provide any long-term functional benefit. There is currently no convincing evidence that the clinical benefit is influenced by the route of administration or the dosage of glucocorticoid, or the particular glucocorticoid prescribed. Recent studies support similarities in the bioequivalence and in the clinical effect of high dose oral corticosteroids for MS relapses. OBJECTIVE: This survey aimed to determine the relapse treatment preferences of clinicians in Canadian MS clinics. METHODS: Members of the Canadian Network of MS Clinics are linked by an email server. A one page survey was distributed to the group to determine and report use of corticosteroids to manage MS relapses amongst Canadian MS specialists. RESULTS: Fifty-one clinicians from 17 MS clinics were surveyed. 32 (63%) surveys were returned representing 16 clinics. Five doses are most commonly prescribed, usually without a taper. Three or four doses and the use of a corticosteroid taper, however, are not uncommon. Gastric cytoprotection and sedatives are often prescribed for use as needed. CONCLUSION: This survey illustrates that when Canadian clinicians with expertise in managing MS treat MS relapses they choose high dose corticosteroids, either oral or i.v. The results therefore represent Canadian practice as these clinicians provide direct patient care and influence care by community neurologists. Until evidence clearly identifies a superior practice all options should be available to clinicians and their 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".