MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755565322 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000004506

Preventing multiple sclerosis

2017· editorial· en· W2755565322 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Ann Marrie, Christopher A. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisVitamin D and neurologyExperimental autoimmune encephalomyelitisMedicineDiseaseEncephalomyelitisDemyelinating diseaseImmune systemvitamin D deficiencyAutoimmune diseaseImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 2 million persons worldwide have multiple sclerosis (MS),1 and the burden of the disease for affected individuals and society is substantial. A recent study estimated that by 2031, 133,635 Canadians would be living with MS, and that the direct costs of their care would reach a staggering $2 billion annually.2 Therefore, identifying modifiable risk factors for MS remains vitally important. Researchers still seek to firmly demonstrate a causal role for vitamin D, a biologically plausible etiologic factor which is modifiable. Vitamin D receptors are ubiquitous, being expressed on immune cells and in the CNS; immune responses are affected by variations in 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels; and 1,25-dihydroxycholecaliferol can prevent the emergence of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis,3,4 an animal model of demyelinating disease. However, epidemiologic studies have often been hindered by the inability to demonstrate temporality; that is, that the exposure to inadequate 25(OH)D occurred before the onset of MS.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0110.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207