MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072298846 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000202

Established disease-modifying treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

2015· review· en· W2072298846 on OpenAlexaff
Jiwon Oh, Paul O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsTeriflunomideFingolimodNatalizumabGlatiramer acetateTolerabilityMedicineMultiple sclerosisRelapsing remittingDimethyl fumarateDiseaseIntensive care medicineAdverse effectInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize mechanisms of action, efficacy and safety of established disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) that have been widely approved for use in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). RECENT FINDINGS: Established and widely used DMTs for the treatment of RRMS include the interferon-β agents, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate. These DMTs have quite different mechanisms of action, efficacy and safety and tolerability profiles, which are summarized concisely in the article below. SUMMARY: The treatment algorithm for RRMS is becoming increasingly complex with the ever-expanding armamentarium of DMTs. The choice of DMT will become an increasingly individual decision, based on a number of factors, including disease activity and severity, safety/tolerability profile and patient preference. Neurologists treating patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) will need a thorough knowledge of efficacy, safety and tolerability of the spectrum of DMTs available for treatment of RRMS to provide comprehensive clinical care.

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)0.004
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 score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.413
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.045 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207