MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A recommended treatment algorithm in relapsing multiple sclerosis: report of an international consensus meeting

2006· review· en· W1964683464 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Karussis, L. Biermann, Saeed Bohlega, А. Н. Бойко, Michel Chofflon, Franz Fazekas, Mark S. Freedman, Souheil Gebeily, Riadh Gouider, Eva Havrdová, Gábor Jakab, Rana Karabudak, Ariel Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisConsensus conferenceAlgorithmMedical physicsInternal medicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An International Working Group for Treatment Optimization in MS met to recommend evidence-based therapeutic options for the management of suboptimal responses or intolerable side-effects in patients treated with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). Several DMDs are now available for the treatment of MS that have been shown to alter the clinical course of the disease by decreasing disease activity and delaying the progression of disability. Nevertheless, many patients continue to experience disease activity whilst on treatment, and recommendations have been made on how the success of therapy in an individual patient can be assessed. However, even after having identified criteria for a suboptimal response to current treatments, clinicians require guidance on how to improve the outcomes. This report summarizes the conclusions from a workshop at which this issue was addressed. We suggest treatment pathways for optimizing therapy for those patients with suboptimal responses to DMDs, and therapeutic options for patients with unacceptable side-effects on their current therapy.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207