MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171747481 · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(21)00095-8

2021 MAGNIMS–CMSC–NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis

2021· review· en· W3171747481 on OpenAlexafffund
Mike P. Wattjes, Olga Ciccarelli, Daniel S. Reich, Brenda Banwell, Nicola De Stefano, Christian Enzinger, Franz Fazekas, Massimo Filippi, Jette Lautrup Frederiksen, Claudio Gasperini, Yael Hacohen, Ludwig Kappos, David K.B. Li, Kshitij Mankad, Xavier Montalbán, Scott D. Newsome, Jiwon Oh, Jacqueline Palace, Maria A. Rocca, Jaume Sastre‐Garriga, Mar Tintoré, Anthony Traboulsee, Hugo Vrenken, Tarek Yousry, Frederik Barkhof, Àlex Rovira

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSanofi GenzymeNational Institutes of HealthEli Lilly and CompanyOno PharmaceuticalSiemensSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungMultiple Sclerosis SocietySchweizerische Multiple Sklerose GesellschaftMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaEuropean CommissionGlaxoSmithKline EspañaEMD SeronoUCBNovartisFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaRoche EspañaF. Hoffmann-La RochePfizerBiogenNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesChugai PharmaceuticalMedDay PharmaceuticalsMinistero della SaluteUCLH Biomedical Research CentreBayer HealthCareSanofiMedImmuneNational Multiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisConsensus conferenceMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations643
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

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