MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099979865 · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7540.525

Diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis

2006· review· en· W2099979865 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineDiseaseClinical trialNeurologyWhite matterIntensive care medicinePediatricsPathologyPsychiatryMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis T J MurrayMultiple sclerosis is the most common disabling neurological disease in young adults.Recent advances in understanding the underlying mechanisms and the development of new therapies have increased hope for doctors and their patients.New therapies are available and many other agents are undergoing clinical trials.New information does reveal some disturbing aspects of the disease however.Evidence from several sources suggests that the disease is present long before the first symptom.The disease is also more widespread and continuous than previously thought, with changes in grey as well as white matter and changes in normal appearing white matter.Multiple sclerosis has long been regarded as a demyelinating disease, but evidence now suggests widespread damage to axons that may be more closely correlated with progression of disability.Better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease is allowing more focused development of new therapies. Sources and selection criteriaThis review is based on the conclusions of recent randomised clinical trials, the 15 Cochrane reviews of multiple sclerosis therapy, and guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations218
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207