MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803403988 · doi:10.1177/1352458518773511

Predictive validity of NEDA in the 16- and 21-year follow-up from the pivotal trial of interferon beta-1b

2018· article· en· W2803403988 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas S. Goodin, Anthony T. Reder, Anthony Traboulsee, David Li, Dawn Langdon, Gary Cutter, Stuart D. Cook, Timothy J. O’Donnell, Marcelo Kremenchutzky, Joël Oger, Ralf Koelbach, Christoph Pohl, Eva‐Maria Wicklein

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExpanded Disability Status ScaleInternal medicineInterferon beta-1bMultiple sclerosisClinical trialRandomizationRandomized controlled trialCentral nervous system diseasePhysical therapyInterferon beta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up from the randomized trial of interferon beta-1b (IFNB-1b) permitted the assessment of different definitions of no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) for predicting long-term outcome in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive validity of different NEDA definitions. METHODS: Predictive validity for negative disability outcomes (NDOs) at 16 years and survival at 21 years post-randomization were assessed. NEDA in the first 2 years was defined as follows: clinical NEDA: no relapses or Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression from baseline to Year 2; NEDA-3a: no relapses, no confirmed ⩾1-point EDSS progression, and no new T2-active lesions; NEDA-3b: no relapses, no EDSS progression, and no increase in T2 burden of disease (T2-BOD); and NEDA-4: no relapses, no EDSS progression, and no increase in T2-BOD or atrophy. NDOs were defined as death, need for wheelchair, EDSS ⩾6, or progressive MS. RESULTS: A total of 245 and 371 patients were evaluated at 16 and 21 years, respectively. Clinical NEDA predicted NDOs ( p = 0.0029), as did baseline EDSS ( p < 0.0001), baseline T2-BOD ( p < 0.0001), and change in T2-BOD ( p = 0.0033). IFNB-1b treatment ( p = 0.0251), relapse rate in the 2 years before study start ( p = 0.0260), T2-BOD at baseline ( p = 0.0014), and change in T2-BOD ( p = 0.0129) predicted survival at 21 years. CONCLUSION: Clinical NEDA predicted long-term disability outcome. By contrast, definitions of NEDA that included on-therapy changes in magnetic resonance imaging variables did not increase the predictive validity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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