MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032651512 · doi:10.1177/0272989x02238299

The Relationship between Risk Attitude and Treatment Choice in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

2002· article· en· W2032651512 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa A. Prosser, Karen M. Kuntz, Amit Bar‐Or, Milton C. Weinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsMedicineRelapsing remittingGlatiramer acetateMultinomial logistic regressionLogistic regressionMultiple sclerosisRisk factorPreferenceSocioeconomic statusOrdinal regressionInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) eligible for beta-interferons or glatiramer acetate have chosen to forgo or discontinue treatment The objective of this study was to evaluate risk attitude as a patient characteristic related to treatment choice for patients with MS. METHODS: Sixty-two MS patients completed a survey on treatment history, risk preference, and socioeconomic and clinical variables. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between treatment choice and risk attitude. Risk attitude was measured using a standard gamble question on short-term health outcomes. RESULTS: More risk-seeking patients were less likely to choose treatment compared with more risk-averse patients (P < 0.01). Forpatients who discontinued treatment, the explanatory variable of significance was severity of side effects (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Risk attitude is a patient characteristic related to treatment initiation in patients with MS. This could be an important factor to consider when identifying optimal treatment decisions for individual 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 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)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207