MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067328075 · doi:10.1517/14728210903203790

Antigen-specific therapies in multiple sclerosis

2009· review· en· W2067328075 on OpenAlexaff
Paul S. Giacomini, Amit Bar‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Emerging Drugs · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisEffectorAntigenImmunologyImmune systemNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: If found to be effective, antigen-specific therapies in MS hold the promise of selectively targeting pathogenic effector cells, while leaving the rest of immune system undisturbed. OBJECTIVE: To review the principles and challenges of antigen-specific therapies of the past and those presently under development, and how the lessons learnt can guide us moving forward. METHODS: We review past and current antigen-specific strategies for the treatment of MS, including their successes and challenges, as well as the lessons we have learnt from them about MS pathophysiology. RESULTS: Several antigen-specific therapies may accomplish the desired balance between safety and efficacy, although significant challenges remain for this class of therapeutics.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Emerging DrugsSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207