Evaluation of no evidence of progression or active disease (NEPAD) in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in the ORATORIO trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No evidence of progression or active disease (NEPAD) is a novel combined endpoint defined by the absence of both progression and inflammatory disease activity in primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). In the placebo-controlled phase III ORATORIO study (NCT01194570), we investigated the effect of ocrelizumab on this comprehensive outcome and its components in a post-hoc analysis. METHODS: The proportion of patients with NEPAD (no evidence of progression [NEP; no 12-week confirmed progression of ≥1/≥0.5 points on the Expanded Disability Status Scale if the baseline score was ≤5.5/>5.5 points, respectively; no 12-week confirmed progression of ≥20% on the Timed 25-Foot Walk test and 9-Hole Peg Test], no brain magnetic resonance imaging activity [no new/enlarging T2 lesions and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions], and no protocol-defined relapse) from baseline to week 120 was determined in ocrelizumab- (600 mg; n = 465) and placebo-treated (n = 234) patients. RESULTS: The majority of ORATORIO study patients with PPMS experienced clinical progression or evidence of disease activity. From baseline to week 120, 29.9% and 42.7% ocrelizumab-treated compared to 9.4% and 29.1% placebo-treated patients maintained NEPAD (relative risk [95% confidence interval {CI}], 3.15 [2.07-4.79]; p < 0.001) and NEP (relative risk [95% CI], 1.47 [1.17-1.84]; p < 0.001), respectively. Effects on the individual components of both measures were consistent with the compound outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Compared to placebo, ocrelizumab enhanced 3-fold the proportion of PPMS patients with no evidence of either progression or inflammatory disease activity. NEPAD may represent a sensitive and meaningful comprehensive measure of disease control in patients with PPMS. Ann Neurol 2018;84:527-536.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".