Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy disease activity status: recommendations for clinical research standards and use in clinical practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining long-term outcomes in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) has been complicated by varying definitions of treatment response and differing scales measuring impairment or disability. An expert panel was convened to devise a CIDP Disease Activity Status (CDAS) and to classify long-term outcome by applying it to 106 patients with a consensus diagnosis of CIDP. Sixty of these cases were graded blindly by three independent reviewers to assess inter-rater reliability. The mean duration of follow-up was 6.4 years (range, 3 months-23 years). Eleven percent of patients were classified as cured (stable examination and off treatment for ≥5 years), 20% were in remission (stable and off treatment for <5 years), 44% had stable active disease but required ongoing therapy for at least 1 year, 7% were improving after recent initiation of therapy, and 18% had unstable active disease (treatment naïve or treatment refractory). Excellent inter-rater reliability was observed (kappa scores: 0.93-0.97; p < 0.0001). The CDAS is considered a simple and reproducible tool to classify patients with CIDP according to disease activity and treatment status that can be applied easily in practice and potentially to select patients for clinical trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it