MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271738643 · doi:10.1177/1352458515623862

MS arising during Tocilizumab therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

2016· article· en· W2271738643 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Beauchemin, Robert Carruthers

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTocilizumabMedicineNeuromyelitis opticaMultiple sclerosisRheumatoid arthritisComplicationImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 (IL6) blockage is a treatment strategy used in many inflammatory conditions. Trials in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD) are ongoing. Secondary auto-immunity affecting the central nervous system (CNS) is well described with some biologic agents, mainly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors. These treatments can also aggravate patients with known multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: To describe a case of a patient who developed MS using another biologic, IL6 receptor antibody Tocilizumab. RESULTS: A 48-year-old woman developed MS while on treatment with Tocilizumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). This is the first published report of this association. It has obvious implications for NMOSD patients receiving anti-IL6 therapy. Development of new white matter lesions suggestive of MS in a patient treated with anti-IL6 therapy might represent an important complication of therapy. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates that Tocilizumab might cause secondary auto-immunity in CNS. It is important to be aware of this potential complication as anti-IL6 therapy might become an option for the treatment NMOSD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207