MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972981393 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a92c82

Seeing injectable MS therapies differently

2009· letter· en· W1972981393 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Fox, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlatiramer acetateMedicineMultiple sclerosisNeurologyClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineWhite matterClinically isolated syndromeOncologyRadiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional MRI is a sensitive tool to identify focal white matter inflammation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Despite a limited correlation between MRI lesions and relapses in untreated individuals,1 gadolinium-enhancing lesion activity correlates with treatment response,2 and predicts relapse outcomes in phase III clinical trials.3 For this reason, new lesions on MRI are the standard primary outcome of phase II clinical trials in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). The potential use of MRI biomarkers to compare different MS therapies to each other is also attractive. Comparison of the results of different pivotal trials, although dangerous, has suggested to some that high-dose, high-frequency administration of interferon-β (IFNβ) may have a faster onset of action than glatiramer acetate (GA). This has led to speculation that IFNβ may be more effective than GA, at least in the early stages of treatment. In this issue of Neurology ®, Cadavid et al.4 report the results of the BECOME trial, a head-to-head comparison which sought to address this question. In this industry-sponsored, investigator-conducted trial, 75 patients with RRMS were randomized to receive …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0160.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→