MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067777541 · doi:10.1177/1352458514533846

Further investigation of safety monitoring guidelines based on magnetic resonance imaging lesion activity in multiple sclerosis clinical trials

2014· article· en· W2067777541 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Dong, Yinshan Zhao, A. John Petkau, David Li, Andrew Riddehough, Anthony Traboulsee

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineGuidelineClinical trialMagnetic resonance imagingOdds ratioLesionCohortMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicinePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assess two modified guidelines for monitoring patient safety in multiple sclerosis (MS) trials. These guidelines flag patients with an increase in contrast enhancing lesion (CEL) count above a threshold over the CEL level 1-2 months earlier. We compare the new guidelines to the original guideline where the threshold is set according to the baseline by applying the guidelines to two previous studies. The odds ratios of a subsequent clinical relapse associated with meeting the CEL threshold based on the modified guidelines are similar to those based on the original guideline. There is a need for patient and cohort specific monitoring procedures.

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)0.457
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.700
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4570.700
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.459
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.028 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207