MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044391394 · doi:10.33588/rn.7104.2020095

Prevalencia e impacto de las comorbilidades en pacientes con esclerosis múltiple

2020· review· es· W3044391394 on OpenAlexaff
Simón Cárdenas‐Robledo, Susana Otero‐Romero, Ma del Mar Tintoré Subirana

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Neurología · 2020
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, inflammatory and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. In most cases it is characterised by the recurring focal neurological deficit, which may become progressive over time. Given the chronic nature of the disease, patients may present with additional diseases (comorbidities), which affect the natural history of the disease and its treatment in different ways. AIM: To summarise the available evidence regarding the influence of comorbidities on the natural history of multiple sclerosis. DEVELOPMENT: Patients with multiple sclerosis are at greater risk than the general population of developing both acute and chronic comorbidities. It has been shown that comorbidities can delay the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis after clinical onset, increase the rates of relapses and of accumulation of disability. Comorbidities also influence aspects of the choice of treatment and therapy adherence. Finally, comorbidities also increase the mortality rate and reduce the quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis. CONCLUSIONS: Screening, diagnosis and treatment of comorbidities are a key aspect of caring for patients with multiple sclerosis to improve their long-term prognosis in terms of disability, quality of life and mortality.

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)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de NeurologíaSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207