MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081258243 · doi:10.1002/mus.21236

Electrophysiology in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy with IGIV

2009· article· en· W2081258243 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Bril, Hans Katzberg, Peter D. Donofrio, Marta Banach, Marinos C. Dalakas, C. Q. Deng, Kim Hanna, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Richard AC Hughes, Norman Latov, Ingemar S.J. Merkies, Pieter A. van Doorn

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathyPlaceboMedicinePolyradiculoneuropathyMultifocal motor neuropathyCrossover studyElectrophysiologyAnesthesiaClinical endpointInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialGuillain-Barre syndromeImmunologyAntibodyMismatch negativityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) received immune globulin intravenous, 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C, Gamunex; n=59) or placebo (n=58) every 3 weeks for up to 24 weeks (first period) in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, response-conditional, crossover study. Motor and sensory nerves were assessed at baseline and endpoint/week 24. A nonsignificant trend toward improvement in the proximal amplitude of the most severely affected motor nerve was observed with IGIV-C (0.69+/-1.86 mV) versus placebo (0.47+/-2.29 mV), and a greater improvement of 1.08+/-2.15 mV with IGIV-C versus 0.46+/-2.03 mV with placebo (P=0.089) was observed with exclusion of data from Erb's point stimulation. Greater improvements from baseline favoring IGIV-C were observed for 127/142 electrophysiologic parameters. The averaged motor amplitudes from all motor nerves significantly improved with IGIV-C versus placebo [treatment difference, 0.62 mV; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05, 1.20; P=0.035], and conduction block decreased significantly (treatment difference, -5.54%; 95% CI, -10.43, -0.64; P=0.027), particularly in the lower limbs. Overall, the data suggest that IGIV-C improves electrophysiologic parameters in CIDP.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersFrench-language works237,207