MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105490558 · doi:10.1002/ana.1032

Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis

2001· article· en· W2105490558 on OpenAlexaff
W. I. McDonald, Alistair Compston, Gilles Edan, Donald E. Goodkin, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Fred Lublin, Henry F. McFarland, Donald W. Paty, Chris H. Polman, Stephen C. Reingold, Magnhild Sandberg‐Wollheim, W. A. Sibley, Alan J. Thompson, Stanley van den Noort, Brian Weinshenker, Jerry S. Wolinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseMcDonald criteriaDiagnostic testPediatricsRadiologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Panel on MS Diagnosis presents revised diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS). The focus remains on the objective demonstration of dissemination of lesions in both time and space. Magnetic resonance imaging is integrated with dinical and other paraclinical diagnostic methods. The revised criteria facilitate the diagnosis of MS in patients with a variety of presentations, including "monosymptomatic" disease suggestive of MS, disease with a typical relapsing-remitting course, and disease with insidious progression, without clear attacks and remissions. Previously used terms such as "clinically definite" and "probable MS" are no longer recommended. The outcome of a diagnostic evaluation is either MS, "possible MS" (for those at risk for MS, but for whom diagnostic evaluation is equivocal), or "not MS."

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.015

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 head0.579
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations6,953
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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