Long-term prognostic counselling in people with multiple sclerosis using an online analytical processing tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic counselling is a sensitive issue in medicine and especially so in MS due to the highly heterogeneous disease course. However, people with MS (pwMS) seek prognostic information. The web-based 'Evidence-Based Decision Support Tool in Multiple Sclerosis' (EBDiMS) uses data of 717 patients from the London/Ontario cohort to calculate personalized long-term prognostic information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and effect of long-term prognostic counselling in pwMS using EBDiMS. METHODS: Ninety consecutive pwMS were provided with personalized estimations of expected time to reach Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 6 and 8 and time to conversion to secondary-progressive MS. Participants gave estimates on their own putative prognosis and rated the tool's acceptability on six-step Likert-type scales. RESULTS: Participants rated EBDiMS as highly understandable, interesting and relevant for patient-physician encounters, coping and therapy decisions. Although it provoked a certain degree of worry in some participants, 95% would recommend using the tool. Participants' own prognosis estimates did not change significantly following EBDiMS. CONCLUSION: Long-term prognostic counselling using an online tool has been shown to be feasible in a clinical setting. EBDiMS provides pwMS with relevant, easy-to-understand, long-term prognostic information without causing relevant anxiety.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".