MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972318350 · doi:10.1097/wco.0b013e32832b4ca1

Emerging multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies

2009· review· en· W1972318350 on OpenAlexaff
Paul S. Giacomini, Peter J. Darlington, Amit Bar‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNeuroDevNetMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersEMD SeronoTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisDiseaseMedicineClinical trialImmune systemAdverse effectNeurosciencePathophysiologyBioinformaticsImmunologyPharmacologyPsychologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We focus on emerging therapies for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) whose progress through late-phase clinical trials has furthered our understanding of MS pathophysiology. RECENT FINDINGS: A promising array of potential new therapies for MS is targeting a broadening range of pathophysiologic mechanisms. Essentially all emerging therapies in late-phase clinical trials continue to focus on peripheral immune mechanisms that predominate early in the illness. The success of some of these, with varying mechanisms of action, has contributed to an evolution in our conceptual framework of MS. SUMMARY: Several of the emerging therapies focusing on immune-mediated disease mechanisms seem to offer stronger efficacy than the currently approved immune modulators for MS, although with potential for serious adverse effects. These therapies have also broadened our understanding of MS pathophysiology by demonstrating that significant decreases in new disease activity can be achieved through targeting of distinct cell types and mechanisms.

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)0.001
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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207