MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972876345 · doi:10.1191/1352458504ms1007oa

Elevated aminotransferases during treatment with interferon-beta for multiple sclerosis: actions and outcomes

2004· article· en· W1972876345 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Tremlett, Joël Oger

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisToxicityInternal medicineGastroenterologyLiver toxicitySurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report further analysis of a six-year retrospective chart review of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients prescribed interferon-beta (IFNB) in British Columbia, Canada. Actions and outcomes taken when 284/835 (34%) of the patients developed de novo elevated aminotransferases are presented; 239/284 (84%) of patients were continued on treatment despite these elevations; 216/246 (88%) of patients reaching grade 1 toxicity (greater than the upper limit of normal) continued IFNB treatment; of these, 167/216 (77%) returned to within normal limits. Of the 22/29 (76%) reaching grade 2 toxicity (> 2.5 times the upper limit of normal) and continuing treatment, 14/22 (64%) returned to within the normal range. One of the nine patients reaching grade 3 toxicity ( > 5 times the upper limit of normal) was allowed continue treatment and their aminotransferase levels returned to within normal limits. However, one patient reaching grade 3 toxicity went on to develop liver failure (previously reported).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207