MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnetic resonance imaging of multiple sclerosis: new insights linking pathology to clinical evolution

2001· review· en· W2324025256 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Matthews, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMultiple sclerosisMyelinPathologyPathologicalMedicineAtrophyLesionNeuroscienceNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyPsychologyCentral nervous systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging methods allow observation of pathological changes in vivo. Magnetic resonance-based studies have provided a number of important insights into the spatio-temporal evolution of the pathology of multiple sclerosis in vivo, particularly with respect to the relation between pathology and progression of disability. Magnetic resonance techniques have shown that this pathology is not restricted to the plaques that are evident at autopsy, but also involve the so-called normal-appearing white matter. Nonconventional magnetic resonance imaging strategies such as magnetization transfer imaging and spectroscopic imaging provide measures with higher pathological specificity for myelin and axonal injury. These and other advanced magnetic resonance techniques (such as the measurement of atrophy, lesion relaxation spectra, and lesion dynamics) are affording opportunities to use observations of patients to test biologically specific hypotheses. This should help us to better define new targets for drug therapy and to assess responses to new therapeutic agents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207