MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973931332 · doi:10.1097/jnn.0000000000000039

Pegylated Interferons

2014· review· en· W1973931332 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Howley, Marcelo Kremenchutzky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Nursing · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEGylationDosingMedicineBioavailabilityPharmacologyPolyethylene glycolMultiple sclerosisDrugPatient complianceEthylene glycolClinical trialPharmacokineticsPEG ratioPegylated interferonIntensive care medicineInternal medicineImmunologyChemistryVirusRibavirinEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies are injectable drugs, and the frequency of injections has been shown to be inversely proportional to overall compliance. One method of improving therapeutic compliance and thus clinical outcomes is to develop medications that require less frequent dosing. One of the most promising modification techniques to extend the bioavailability of a drug is poly(ethylene glycol) conjugation (pegylation), which increases the size of a molecule by attaching polyethylene glycol moieties to the parent compound, resulting in slower clearance and metabolism. This approach has been used to improve the efficacy of a number of therapeutic molecules, including interferons. Peginterferon beta-1a, a pegylated form of interferon beta-1a, is currently in phase III clinical trials for relapsing MS and has the potential to improve patient compliance by reducing the number of injections while maintaining clinical efficacy. The role of nurses in educating patients about the effective use of this new MS therapy is discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience NursingSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207