MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344555179 · doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2015-070

Fatigue and Comorbidities in Multiple Sclerosis

2016· article· en· W2344555179 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten M. Fiest, John D. Fisk, Scott B. Patten, Helen Tremlett, Christina Wolfson, Sharon Warren, Kyla A. McKay, Lindsay Berrigan, Ruth Ann Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of MS Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaSt. Francis Xavier UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedicineCredentialingContinuing medical educationContinuing educationNursingCommissionFamily medicineMedical educationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CME/CNE Information Activity Available Online: To access the article, post-test, and evaluation online, go to http://www.cmscscholar.org. Target Audience: The target audience for this activity is physicians, physician assistants, nursing professionals, and other health-care providers involved in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Learning Objectives: 1) Be able to discuss the risk of new onset of fatigue and comorbidities associated with increased fatigue with MS patients and their families 2) Be able to identify and address comorbidities that are most associated with fatigue in MS patients Accreditation Statement: This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA), and Delaware Media Group. The CMSC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The CMSC designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA) is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. NPA designates this enduring material for a maximum of 1.0 Continuing Nursing Education credits. Disclosures: Francois Bethoux, MD, Editor in Chief of the International Journal of MS Care (IJMSC), has served as Physician Planner for this activity. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as Nurse Planner for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The authors (listed in the article's author byline) and the anonymous peer reviewers for the IJMSC have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Method of Participation: Release Date: April 1, 2016 Valid for Credit Through: April 1, 2017 In order to receive CME/CNE credit, participants must: 1) Review the CME/CNE information, including learning objectives and author disclosures. 2) Study the educational content. 3) Complete the post-test and evaluation, which are available at http://www.cmscscholar.org. Statements of Credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test with a passing score of >70% and the evaluation. There is no fee to participate in this activity. Disclosure of Unlabeled Use: This CME/CNE activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not approved by the FDA. CMSC, NPA, and Delaware Media Group do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of CMSC, NPA, or Delaware Media Group. Disclaimer: Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any medications, diagnostic procedures, or treatments discussed in this publication should not be used by clinicians or other health-care professionals without first evaluating their patients' conditions, considering possible contraindications or risks, reviewing any applicable manufacturer's product information, and comparing any therapeutic approach with the recommendations of other authorities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations58
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of MS CareSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207