MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linoleic acid in multiple sclerosis: Failure to show any therapeutic benefit

2009· article· en· W2166505834 on OpenAlexaff
D. W. Paty, Hélène Cousin, S. L. Read, Khushboo Adlakha

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neurologica Scandinavica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinoleic acidMultiple sclerosisMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyChemistryBiochemistryImmunologyFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have studied the effect of a dietary supplement with linoleic acid (LA) in 76 patients with MS. We could detect no effect of this supplement on the progression of neurological findings, the relapse rate, or the severity of relapses. We were also able to show that oral supplementation with a linoleic acid preparation would raise the blood level of LA in these patients. We were unable to show that there was any reduction in the linoleic acid blood levels associated with acute relapses of MS during this study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations84
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Neurologica ScandinavicaSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207