MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130198964 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-302848

Term pregnancies and the clinical characteristics of multiple sclerosis: a population based study

2012· article· en· W2130198964 on OpenAlexaff
Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, Irene M. Yee, Jake Byrnes, Colleen Guimond, George C. Ebers, A. Dessa Sadovnick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyMultiple sclerosisExpanded Disability Status ScalePediatricsPopulationObstetricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancy has a well documented effect on relapse risk in multiple sclerosis (MS). Prospective studies have reported a significant decline by two-thirds in the rate of relapses during the third trimester of pregnancy and a significant increase by two-thirds during the first 3 months postpartum. However, it is unclear as to whether there are any long term effects on disability. METHODS: Data were collated from clinical records and family histories systematically collected from the University of British Columbia MS Clinic. RESULTS: Clinical and term pregnancy data were available from 2105 female MS patients. MS patients having children after MS onset took the longest time to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 6 (mean 22.9 years) and patients having children before MS onset were the quickest (mean 13.2 years). However, these effects were not related to term pregnancy and were fully accounted for by age of MS onset. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy had no effect on the time to reach an EDSS score 6. As MS predominantly affects women of childbearing age, women with MS can be reassured that term pregnancies do not appear to have any long term effects on disability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207