MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107132304 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2011-301051

The Kurtzke EDSS rank stability increases 4 years after the onset of multiple sclerosis: results from the MSBase Registry.

2012· article· en· W2107132304 on OpenAlexaff
Stella Hughes, Timothy Spelman, María Trojano

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCégep de LévisHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsExpanded Disability Status ScaleMedicineMultiple sclerosisCohortRank correlationCohort studyCorrelationInternal medicinePediatricsPhysical therapyStatisticsImmunologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is widely used to rate multiple sclerosis (MS) disability, but lack of disease duration information limits utility in assessing severity. EDSS ranking at specific disease durations was used to devise the MS Severity Score, which is gaining popularity for predicting outcomes. As this requires validation in longitudinal cohorts, we aimed to assess the utility of EDSS ranking as a predictor of 5-year outcome in the MSBase Registry. Methods Rank stability of EDSS over time was examined in the MSBase Registry, a large multicentre MS cohort. Scores were ranked for 5-year intervals, and correlation of rank across intervals was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. EDSS progression outcomes at 10 years were disaggregated by 5-year EDSS scores

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna)Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207