MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term Treatment Optimization in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis Using Disease-Modifying Therapies

2004· article· en· W2020713709 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lorraine Denis, Marie Namey, Kathy Costello, Jocelyne Frenette, Nathalie Gagnon, Colleen Harris, Diane Lowden, Lynn McEwan, Wendy Morrison, Josée Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa Hospital
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialMultiple sclerosisQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseAdverse effectIntensive care medicineSubclinical infectionMEDLINEDisease managementPhysical therapyNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) over the last 7 years has had a significant effect on the management of those living with this disease. Initially, the focus of improving treatment outcomes was on ensuring adherence to therapy by managing drug-related adverse events. However, treatment adherence is only one facet of ensuring optimal health outcomes for patients using DMTs. Therefore, a group of 80 nurses from Canada and the United States (The North American MS Nurses' Treatment Optimization Group) developed an evidence-based nursing approach to address the various factors involved in obtaining optimal patient outcomes. The goal of this nursing approach is to ensure the best possible clinical, subclinical, psychosocial, and quality-of-life outcomes for patients with MS using DMTs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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