MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126266265 · doi:10.1191/1352458504ms1028oa

Primary progressive multiple sclerosis: cerebrospinal fluid considerations

2004· review· en· W2126266265 on OpenAlexaff
Mark S. Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisCerebrospinal fluidMedicinePathologicalDiseaseCentral nervous systemDemyelinating diseaseCentral nervous system diseasePathologyNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnosing the 'primary progressive' form of multiple sclerosis (PPMS) requires assurance that other conditions that might cause a chronic inflammatory neurodegenerative central nervous system (CNS) disease have been ruled out. Both imaging and pathological studies have shown that this form of MS tends to be less inflammatory compared with either the relapsing-remitting or secondary progressive types. There are therefore many conditions that cause a slowly progressive wasting of the CNS that might be confused with MS. The new MS diagnostic scheme has made the presence of 'typical' MS abnormalities in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) a mandatory first criterion, but there may well be individuals that still have PPMS even in the absence of a typical MS CSF. Here we explore what the CSF can tell about an individual's disease process and outline the current state of the art in terms of CSF analysis. Used properly, the CSF can be very helpful in clarifying a diagnosis of PPMS.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207