Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Northeast ALS consortium was formed in 1995 with nine sites interested in collaborative clinical research. We have since expanded to over 30 participating sites across much of the US. We also hope to collaborate with clinical researchers in Europe and Canada for Phase III efficacy trials that require the involvement of many sites. Our mission statement is to cooperate to plan, perform, analyze and report controlled clinical trials in ALS, with the goal of improving treatment for patients with ALS. The concept we had was that a large group could rapidly execute high quality pivotal trials in ALS and provide a mechanism to test more therapies. Critical to the success of the consortium is close collaboration with many basic scientists who study the causes of the disease and who have various models for screening compounds. The group has developed several different approaches to testing therapies depending on the stage of drug development. We have established intra- and inter-rater reliability across the centers for muscle strength and pulmonary measures, and motor unit number estimates. We continue to explore other measurements that might be useful in this disease. The NEALS organization decided from the onset to be very inclusive; anyone wishing to be involved can become a member. The executive committee has two co-chairs, who are elected every six years, and two elected site investigators elected for three-year terms. The scientific advisory committee and statistical consultants also participate on the executive committee. We created a number of working groups including members interested in clinical trial design, biomarkers, and other collaborative research projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".