MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Top 10 Needs of People with Multiple Sclerosis and Their Significant Others

2006· article· en· W2038697694 on OpenAlex
Wilma J. Koopman, Cathy-Lee Benbow, Margaret K. Vandervoort

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialNeeds assessmentInformation needsFocus groupMultiple sclerosisMedicinePsychologyFamily medicinePopulationHealth carePsychiatryEnvironmental healthBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to identify the needs of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and their significant others. A quantitative questionnaire, developed from focus groups and consisting of 75 needs statements, was administered to 353 MS patients and 240 significant others. Analysis produced rankings of the 10 most important needs of both groups. Rankings by the MS patients and significant others were similar. Three themes emerged. Psychosocial and other personal needs (relationship with physicians, the MS healthcare team, family, and friends) were ranked with high frequency. Information needs (information regarding MS or available support) and financial security were also ranked as important. The data validate the importance of interdisciplinary care for the MS population.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.237 · 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