MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089698860 · doi:10.1177/0883073812452784

Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis

2012· review· en· W2089698860 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Bigi, Brenda Banwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric multiple sclerosis has been increasingly recognized in the past 10 to 15 years; 3% to 5% of all multiple sclerosis patients experience their first attack in childhood. Childhood multiple sclerosis has a relapsing-remitting disease course. The first attack, or "acquired demyelinating syndrome," consists of optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and monofocal or polyfocal neurological deficits. The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis necessitates the clinical or magnetic resonance imaging confirmation of dissemination in space and time and exclusion of other disorders. The morbidity of childhood multiple sclerosis is significant; within the first 2 years from onset, 30% of children have significant cognitive impairment, 50% show signs of depression, and 75% are fatigued. The relapse rate in children with multiple sclerosis is higher than in adult-onset disease. Following acute treatment, recovery after the first attacks is usually excellent, but patients with childhood-onset multiple sclerosis reach permanent disability or enter the secondary progressive disease course 10 years younger than patients with adult-onset multiple sclerosis.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations75
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207