MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015849975 · doi:10.4137/cmt.s7586

Early Mitoxantrone-Induced Cardiotoxicity Detected in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

2011· article· en· W2015849975 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Namaka, Dana Turcotte, Meghann Klowak, Christine Leong, Amy Grossberndt, J-A. Le Dorze, Michael Prout, S Andresen, Lam Vuong, Maria Melanson, Emma E. Frost, Malcolm Doupe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitoxantroneMedicineCardiotoxicityMultiple sclerosisTolerabilityInternal medicineOncologyEjection fractionNatalizumabDiseaseAdverse effectChemotherapyHeart failureImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose Mitoxantrone (MX) (Novantrone ® ) is approved in Canada for certain refractory cancers and acute non-lymphocytic leukemias. It has FDA approval as an immunomodulatory agent for use in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). The general aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of MX in SPMS. Experimental approach A single-centre, open-label, non-randomized study was conducted in patients with a ≥6 month history of SPMS. The primary parameters used to assess efficacy and safety were EDSS scores and the multiple-gated acquisition scan (MUGA) scores, respectively. Key results The MX-treatment group experienced a high dropout rate due to significantly reduced ventricular ejection fraction. EDSS scores from baseline to follow-up revealed no statistical difference between active control and MX-treatment groups. Conclusion: MX treatment may not slow disease progression in certain forms of SPMS and may be associated with a high risk of cardiotoxicity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.067 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights TherapeuticsSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207