MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070532347 · doi:10.1177/1352458509106212

Assessing disability progression with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite

2009· article· en· W2070532347 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersMarshall Space Flight CenterU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationIC Design Education CenterBiogen
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisNatalizumabExpanded Disability Status ScaleTumor progressionInternal medicineImmunologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The initial Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) proposal was a three-part composite of quantitative measures of ambulation, upper extremity function, and cognitive function expressed as a single composite Z-score. However, the clinical meaning of an MSFC Z-score change is not obvious. This study instead used MSFC component data to define a patient-specific disease progression event. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a new method for analyzing disability progression using the MSFC. METHODS: MSFC progression was defined as worsening from baseline on scores of at least one MSFC component by 20% (MSFC Progression-20) or 15% (MSFC Progression-15), sustained for >or=3 months. Progression rates were determined using data from natalizumab clinical studies (Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [AFFIRM] and Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab in Combination With Interferon Beta-1a in Patients With Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [SENTINEL]). Correlations between MSFC progression and other clinical measures were determined, as was sensitivity to treatment effects. RESULTS: Substantial numbers of patients met MSFC progression criteria, with MSFC Progression-15 being more sensitive than MSFC Progression-20, at both 1 and 2 years. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 were related significantly to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score change, relapse rate, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score change. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 at 1 year were predictive of EDSS progression at 2 years. Both MSFC progression end points demonstrated treatment effects in AFFIRM, and results were replicated in SENTINEL. CONCLUSION: MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 are sensitive measures of disability progression; correlate with EDSS, relapse rates, and SF-36 PCS; and are capable of demonstrating therapeutic effects in randomized, controlled clinical studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.182 · 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