MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment: The use of natalizumab (Tysabri) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review)

2008· review· en· W1996787636 on OpenAlexaff
DS Goodin, Bruce A. Cohen, Paul O’Connor, Ludwig Kappos, J. Clarke Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatalizumabProgressive multifocal leukoencephalopathyMedicineMultiple sclerosisInternal medicineCohortOncologyClinical trialPhysical therapyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical and radiologic impact of natalizumab (Tysabri) as therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) is assessed. On the basis of Class I evidence, natalizumab has been demonstrated to reduce measures of disease activity and to improve measures of disease severity in patients with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS (Level A). The relative efficacy of natalizumab compared to current disease-modifying therapies cannot be defined accurately (Level U). Similarly, the value of natalizumab in the treatment of secondary progressive (SP) MS is unknown (Level U). The value of combination therapy using natalizumab and interferon in the treatment of RRMS is also unknown (Level U). There is an increased risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in natalizumab-treated patients (Level A for combination therapy, Level C for monotherapy) and possibly an increased risk of other opportunistic infections (Level C). The PML risk in a pooled clinical trial cohort has been estimated to be 1 person for every 1,000 patients treated for an average of 17.9 months, although this figure could change in either direction with more experience with the drug.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.505
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.060 · 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.

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

Citations115
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207