MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075154501 · doi:10.1517/14656566.2014.902936

Teriflunomide: a novel oral treatment for relapsing multiple sclerosis

2014· review· en· W2075154501 on OpenAlexaff
Arianna Sartori, Dawn Carle, Mark S. Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeriflunomideMedicineTolerabilityMultiple sclerosisIntensive care medicineAdverse effectOncologyInternal medicineFingolimodImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis is a disabling chronic inflammatory disease of the CNS. New emerging oral treatments can offer efficacy with higher levels of therapeutic adherence. Teriflunomide is one such oral agent that has recently been approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). AREAS COVERED: The aim of this review is to describe the pharmacological profile of teriflunomide and review the vast clinical development program that paved the way for its approval, with emphasis on its safety and tolerability. EXPERT OPINION: Teriflunomide is a safe new oral medication for treating RMS. It is effective at reducing relapses, MRI activity and slowing disability progression. It is well tolerated, with mild and transitory side effects. Although teriflunomide is given a pregnancy category 'X' by the FDA and an effective contraception is needed, to date, there has been no evidence of teratogenicity in humans and a rapid washout procedure can lead to a virtually complete elimination. Its effectiveness appeared to be at least comparable to that of high-dose IFN-β-1a, and although direct comparisons with other orals are still lacking, its tolerability and encouraging safety data suggest that teriflunomide could be considered an ideal first-line medication for RMS.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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