MRI results from the European Study on Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (ESIMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monthly application of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) to patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) showed no clinical benefit in the European Study on Immunoglobulin in MS (ESIMS). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results may provide insights into the morphologic consequences of such treatment. METHODS: A total of 318 patients (mean age 44 +/- 7 years) were enrolled in 31 European and Canadian centres and treated monthly with 1 g/kg body weight of IVIG or equivalent amounts of albumin 0.1% for 27 months. MRI was performed at baseline and after 12 and 24 months and comprised of conventional dual-echo T2-weighted and T1-weighted scans before and after application of 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. RESULTS: Similar to clinical variables, MRI measures at baseline were well comparable between treatment groups except for a somewhat lower mean number of contrast-enhancing lesions and number of active scans in IVIG-treated patients. Over the trial period there was almost no change of the T2-lesion load and the 'black hole' volume in both treatment groups and the cumulative number of contrast-enhancing lesions were similar. There was only a trend for fewer new or enlarged T2-lesions in IVIG patients, which disappeared after correction for the imbalance in the number of contrast-enhancing lesions at baseline. Brain volume in terms of a partial cerebral fraction decreased significantly less with IVIG than placebo treatment (final visit: -0.62 -/+ 0.88% versus -0.88 +/- 0.91%; P=0.009). This difference remained statistically significant with correction for active lesions at baseline (P=0.02) and was seen primarily in male patients and those with an Expanded Disability Status Scale score > or = 6 and no relapses in the two years before the study. CONCLUSION: The absence of significant differences in conventional MRI measures between both treatment groups parallels the negative clinical results of ESIMS. The causes for and possible long-term clinical effects of a lower rate of brain volume loss in IVIG patients should be explored further.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".