MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910017905 · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30460-5

Spinal cord involvement in multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders

2019· review· en· W2910017905 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Ciccarelli, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Stephen C. Reingold, Brian G. Weinshenker, Maria Pia Amato, Brenda Banwell, Frederik Barkhof, Bruce F. Bebo, Burkhard Becher, François Béthoux, Alexander Brandt, Wallace Brownlee, Peter Calabresi, Jeremy Chatway, Claudia Chien, Tanuja Chitnis, Jeffrey Cohen, Giancarlo Comi, Jorge Correale, de Sèze, Nicola De Stefano, Franz Fazekas, Eoin P. Flanagan, Mark Freedman, Kazuo Fujihara, Steven Galetta, Myla Goldman, Benjamin Greenberg, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Bernhard Hemmer, A Henning, Izlem Izbudak, Ludwig Kappos, Hans Lassmann, Cornelia Laule, Michael Levy, Fred Lublin, Claudia F. Lucchinetti, Carsten Lukas, Ruth Ann Marrie, Aaron Miller, David S. Miller, Xavier Montalbán, Ellen M. Mowry, Sébastien Ourselin, Friedemann Paul, Daniel Pelletier, Jean‐Philippe Ranjeva, Daniel H. Reich, Maria A. Rocca, Àlex Rovira, Regina Schlaerger, Per Soelberg Sorensen, Maria Pia Sormani, Olaf Stüve, Alan J. Thompson, Mar Tintoré, Anthony Traboulsee, Bruce D. Trapp, María Trojano, Bernard M.J. Uitdehaag, Sandra Vukusic, Emmanuelle Waubant, Claudia A. M. Gandini Wheeler‐Kingshott, Junqian Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersMultiple Sclerosis SocietyEuropean Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple SclerosisNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Multiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisNeuromyelitis opticaSpinal cordMedicineMyelopathyPathologicalNeuroimagingNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.128 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations168
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207