MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011178903 · doi:10.1007/s00415-013-6903-5

Neuroprotection with glatiramer acetate: evidence from the PreCISe trial

2013· article· en· W2011178903 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas L. Arnold, Sridar Narayanan, Samson Antel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNeuroRx Research (Canada)
FundersTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsGlatiramer acetatePlaceboMultiple sclerosisNeuroprotectionMedicineCreatineNeurologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingGastroenterologyNeuroradiologyPathologyImmunologyRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled PreCISe trial assessed glatiramer acetate (GA) effects in patients with clinically isolated syndromes (CIS) suggestive of multiple sclerosis (MS). To assess the neuroprotective effect of GA in a subset of patients in the PreCISe trial, we used proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure N-acetylaspartate (NAA), a marker of neuronal integrity, in a large central volume of brain. Thirty-four CIS patients randomized to GA 20 mg/day (n = 19) SC or placebo (n = 15) were included. Patients who relapsed (developed clinically definite MS [CDMS]) were removed from the substudy. NAA/creatine (NAA/Cr) ratios were compared between GA-treated and placebo-treated patients. Twenty patients with CIS had not converted to CDMS and were still in the double-blind phase of the trial at 12 months of follow-up. Paired changes in NAA/Cr differed significantly in patients treated with GA (+0.14, n = 11) compared with patients receiving placebo (-0.33, n = 9, p = 0.03) at 12 months, consistent with a neuroprotective effect of GA in vivo. Patients with CIS who received GA showed improvement in brain neuroaxonal integrity, as indicated by increased NAA/Cr, relative to comparable patients treated with placebo, who showed a decline in NAA/Cr consistent with findings from natural history studies.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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