Consensus statement: evaluation of new and existing therapeutics for pediatric multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New therapies are being evaluated by clinical trials and, if efficacious, introduced for the treatment of adult MS. The role of these new and existing agents in the management of pediatric MS has yet to be defined. Pediatric investigation plans are now required by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for approval of new biological agents, providing an important opportunity to gather much-needed data for clinicians caring for children and adolescents with MS. However, challenges include the small number of patients, and the need for efficient yet comprehensive study designs incorporating factors necessary to inform the clinical care of children with MS. The elected Steering committee of the International Pediatric MS Study Group (IPMSSG) conducted a structured review of existing data on the disease-modifying therapies in pediatric MS and developed a consensus statement, which was further modified by the IPMSSG general membership, using an online survey tool. Fifty-one IPMSSG members from 21 countries responded to the survey, and 50 approved the final statement. Consensus recommendations regarding use of existing first- and second-line therapies, as well as a proposed definition for inadequate treatment response, are presented. Recommendations for the use and evaluation of emerging therapies (currently in phase III clinical trials or recently approved for adult MS) are discussed. The IPMSSG endorses the inclusion of pediatric MS patients in trials evaluating appropriate new and emerging therapies. Mechanisms for conducting high-impact, multicenter studies, including long-term follow-up in pediatric MS, are required to ensure that all MS patients, irrespective of age, benefit from advances in MS therapeutics.
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 | 0.116 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".