The neurologist’s role in disabling multiple sclerosis: A qualitative study of patient and care provider perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced, disabling multiple sclerosis (MS) have few effective treatment options. Little is known about the role that patients and their care providers want their neurologist to fill in this situation. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the role that patients with disabling MS and their care providers want their neurologist to have in their care. METHODS: In this exploratory qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 participants (19 patients with severe disability due to MS and 10 care providers). Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified three main roles for their neurologist: a source of hope for therapeutic advances, an educator about the disease and its management, and a source of support. CONCLUSION: Despite sustaining a level of disability that may be refractory to standard medical therapy, patients with disabling MS and care providers continue to value certain roles of their neurologist. The neurologist's role as a source of hope and support in particular has not received enough attention in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".