MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068169278 · doi:10.1177/1352458507076994

Clinical significance of glatiramer acetate antibodies

2007· article· en· W2068169278 on OpenAlexaff
François Blanchette

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsTeva Pharmaceuticals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlatiramer acetateMultiple sclerosisAntibodyImmunologyAntigenRemyelinationMedicineIn vitroPharmacologyChemistryInternal medicineBiochemistryMyelinCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glatiramer acetate is a mixture of synthetic peptides that are cross-reactive with MBP. The antigen-based therapy induces a shift to an anti-inflammatory Th2 bias and is used in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Like other peptide antigens, GA induces an antibody response in all patients. In contrast to biologically active agents, such as the recombinant interferon beta drugs, GA is a peptide antigen that lacks intrinsic biological activity. In vitro and in vivo data have shown that GA-reactive antibodies are not neutralizing. Antibodies do not alter the principal immunological effects of GA, including binding to MHC Class II molecules, activation and proliferation of GA-reactive T cells, and the release of anti-inflammatory Th2 cytokines. Higher antibody titres do not appear to be associated with a deterioration in clinical endpoints, such as relapse rate, EDSS progression or the occurrence of side effects in MS patients treated with GA. The presence of GA-reactive antibodies may promote remyelination and enhance the immunological and clinical effects of GA, indicating that they may be part of GA's mechanism of action. Multiple Sclerosis 2007; 13: S28—S35. http://msj.sagepub.com

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.315
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207