MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168562618 · doi:10.1212/wnl.63.11_suppl_5.s35

Strategies for managing the side effects of treatments for multiple sclerosis

2004· review· en· W2168562618 on OpenAlexaff
Annette Langer‐Gould, Harold Moses, T. Jock Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSide effect (computer science)Intensive care medicineMitoxantroneMultiple sclerosisCardiotoxicityPharmacotherapyDiseaseChemotherapySurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) are a mainstay of treatment. All of these agents are associated with side effects, most of which are easily managed with only minimal additional pharmacotherapy. Appropriate patient education and physician support are critical to achieve the best medical outcome and to maximize patient compliance with long-term therapies for this debilitating condition. Although many side effects subside shortly after initiation of treatment, such as flu-like symptoms with interferon treatment, some side effects are cumulative and can become life-threatening if they are unrecognized (e.g., cardiotoxicity with mitoxantrone). Therefore, physicians must be aware of appropriate laboratory monitoring schedules to prevent serious toxicities and to become familiar with less serious but more common side effects that often threaten patient compliance. Patients should be encouraged to communicate with their physicians so that side effects can be managed promptly. This article describes and provides management strategies for side effects associated with MS treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207