MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patient-Reported Quality of Life in the BENEFIT Trial (P4.180)

2014· article· en· W2277860996 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Edan, Ludwig Kappos, Xavier Montalbán, Mark Freedman, Hans Hartung, David W. Miller, Frederik Barkhof, Julia M. Hermann, Vivian Lanius, Christoph Pohl, Rupert Sandbrink, Dirk Pleimes

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineQuality (philosophy)NursingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe long-term QoL in BENEFIT BACKGROUND: In BENEFIT, patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) randomized to early treatment with interferon beta-1b (IFNB-1b) had a longer time to reach clinically-definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) and a lower annualized relapse rate than patients who received delayed treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide valuable assessments of long-term quality of life (QoL). DESIGN/METHODS: Of the 468 patients with CIS (initially randomized to either IFNB-1b [early treatment] or placebo [delayed treatment]), 284 entered into the extension study and were followed for up to 8.7 years. QoL was assessed by the FAMS, EQ-5D, and EQ-VAS at screening and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: 195, 265, and 263 patients had FAMS, EQ-5D, and EQ-VAS scores respectively at baseline, with 111, 156, and 156 at Year 8. Baseline PRO scores (FAMS, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS) were relatively high and remained so for most patients for all 3 measures. At baseline mean [SD] FAMS-Trial Outcome Index (TOI) was for IFNB-1b: 122.73 [19.0], placebo: 127.79 [15.7] with only a slight decrease over time (mean [SD] change from baseline scores: early: -6.94 [21.45], delayed: -5.34 [23.12]). FAMS total scores showed a similar course, mainly driven by the family/social well-being and additional concerns subscales. Differences between treatment groups in FAMS-TOI or FAMS total score over the 8.7 years were not significant. For the early treatment group, EQ-5D scores tended to remain constant with a favorable trend compared with delayed treatment. No differences were observed on the EQ-VAS. CONCLUSIONS: PRO scores were comparable across early and delayed treatment groups and remained at high levels with only a slight decline over time in both groups. Although a bias due to only partial ascertainment of PROs and selective drop out cannot be excluded, these findings indicate an overall beneficial effect of IFNB-1b on PRO reported QoL. Study Supported by: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→