MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150843744 · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2015.03.005

Impact of multiple sclerosis relapse: The NARCOMS participant perspective

2015· article· en· W2150843744 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamCleveland Clinic
KeywordsMedicineWeaknessAdverse effectSocioeconomic statusMultiple sclerosisPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryPopulationSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute relapses continue to be a significant aspect of multiple sclerosis (MS) on both the epidemiologic level and the individual patient level. Past work demonstrates residual disability from relapses as well as high patient-reported rates of ineffective relapse treatment. To better characterize the impact of MS relapses on the patient, a relapse-specific survey was administered through the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry to 1000 registry participants who had reported at least one relapse in the past 12 months. Thirty percent of respondents confirmed lack of relapse treatment efficacy at one month and at three months. Relapses also impacted socioeconomic measures; for individuals still going to school or working, more than half missed days and their average loss of school or work was 12.7 days. An impact on household tasks was reported by 68% of respondents. A healthcare facility such as a hospital, emergency room or urgent care center was utilized by 20.4% of respondents. The most common relapse symptoms were fatigue, weakness of the lower extremity, sensory symptoms, problems walking, and weakness of the upper extremity. Of the respondents who reported receiving corticosteroid treatment (53.3%), over half reported an adverse event. However, this was not a significant factor in dictating whether or not respondents would seek a different treatment on their next relapse, although 31% would choose a different treatment for their next relapse. Relapses continue to be an impactful experience that requires continued clinical attention. Improved follow-up from relapses and relapse treatment might be beneficial.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.207 · 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