MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029618438 · doi:10.1586/ern.12.89

The Multiple Sclerosis Depression Rating Scale

2012· letter· en· W2029618438 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten M. Fiest, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRating scaleDepression (economics)Multiple sclerosisPsychologyScale (ratio)PsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyGeographyCartographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of: Quaranta D, Marra C, Zinno M et al. Presentation and validation of the Multiple Sclerosis Depression Rating Scale: a test specifically devised to investigate affective disorders in multiple sclerosis patients. Clin. Neuropsychol. 26(4), 571–587 (2012).Depression is a troublesome issue in the lives of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, there are many questions about how to measure depression in people with MS. Depression is a syndrome that is characterized by emotional, cognitive and somatic symptoms. Depression scales are usually designed to cover each of these domains but in MS there is concern that cognitive deficits and somatic symptoms related to the illness itself may inflate depressive symptom scores, potentially leading to false-positive ratings. Such misclassification may consume excessive resources in screening programs due to the triggering of unnecessary clinical assessments. In research, such misclassification could lead to bias. In an effort to address these issues, the authors of the article under evaluation have recently developed a new scale, the Multiple Sclerosis Depression Rating Scale.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207