MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167256476 · doi:10.1177/2055217315577829

Personalized activity index, a new safety monitoring tool for multiple sclerosis clinical trials

2015· article· en· W2167256476 on OpenAlexafffund
Yinshan Zhao, Yumi Kondo, Anthony Traboulsee, David Li, Andrew Riddehough, A. John Petkau

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and Clinical · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineMultiple sclerosisClinical trialPost-hoc analysisInternal medicineOncologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An abnormal increase of contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL) counts on frequent MRIs is interpreted as a signal of potential worsening in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. We demonstrate the utility of the MR personalized activity index (MR-pax) to identify such increases. METHODS: = 167) with MRIs at screening, baseline and months 1-6. We performed five consecutive reviews at 90-day intervals. At each review, we evaluate the MR-pax for each patient and also identify those who meet the rule-of-five (an ad-hoc guideline currently in use). To evaluate its clinical relevance, we assess the relation between having a small MR-pax (≤0.05; indicating an unexpected CEL increase) and relapse status in the 12 weeks post-review. RESULTS: Of the 399 patient reviews, 35 cases met the rule-of-five; 35 had an MR-pax ≤ 0.05; 18 met both criteria. The proportions experiencing clinical relapse are 63% among those meeting the rule-of-five, 61% among those with MR-pax ≤0.05, and 83% for those meeting both criteria, more than double the rate of those meeting neither criterion (40%). CONCLUSION: A guideline combining this new personalized index and the existing threshold-based criterion is able to better identify patients with a higher risk of experiencing relapses.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.619
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.114 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and ClinicalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207