A randomized blinded trial of combination therapy with cyclophosphamide in patients with active multiple sclerosis on interferon beta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pulse cyclophosphamide given with methylprednisolone (MP) and interferon beta (IFNbeta)-Ia in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with active disease during IFNbeta monotherapy. METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial in MS patients with a history of active disease during IFNbeta treatment. Patients were randomized to either cyclophosphamide 800 mg/m2 plus methylprednisolone 1 g IV (CY/MP) or methylprednisolone once a month for six months and then followed for an additional 18 months. All patients received three days of methylprednisolone 1 g IV at screening and 30 mcg IFNbeta-Ia IM weekly for the entire 24 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions. Secondary clinical endpoints included time to treatment failure. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were randomized to treatment: 30 to CY/MP and 29 to MP Change from baseline in the number of Gd+ lesions was significantly different between treatment groups at three (P =0.01), six (P =0.04) and 12 months (P =0.02), with fewer lesions in the CY/MP group. The cumulative rate of treatment failure was significantly lower in the CY/MP group compared with the MP group (rate ratio =0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.75; P =0.011). CY/MP treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with CY/MP and IFNbeta-Ia decreased the number of Gd+ lesions and slowed clinical activity in patients with previously active disease on IFNbeta alone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".