MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient satisfaction with an injection device for multiple sclerosis treatment

2006· article· en· W2029513604 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joyce A. Cramer, Brian J. Cuffel, Vamil Divan, A AL-Sabbagh, Marc B. Glassman

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neurologica Scandinavica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityPfizer
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicinePatient satisfactionPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To develop a measure of treatment satisfaction assessing attributes specific to injected interferon-beta-1a (IFN-beta-1a) for multiple sclerosis (MS), and to test pain and instrument sensitivity to change among patients changing injection devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MS Treatment Concerns Questionnaire (MSTCQ) was developed and tested with pain assessments before and 3 months after patients changed devices from Rebiject to Rebiject II. RESULTS: The MSTCQ was organized with two domains: Injection System Satisfaction and Side Effects (three subscales: Injection Site Reactions, Global Satisfaction, and Flu-Like Symptoms). Significant improvements (P = 0.002 to P < 0.001) occurred with the new injection device in all MSTCQ subscales (except Flu-Like Symptoms), and all pain measures (P < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful improvement was demonstrated in all scales, except Flu-Like Symptoms, by effect sizes (0.23-0.59). CONCLUSIONS: These statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in MSTCQ and pain measures show the value of technologically advanced devices in domains of concern to patients.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations71
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Neurologica ScandinavicaSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207