MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W31743995 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100053877

Axonal Damage in Multiple Sclerosis Patients with High versus Low Expanded Disability Status Scale Score

2004· article· en· W31743995 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Steven D. Brass, Sridar Narayanan, Jack P. Antel, Yves Lapierre, D. Louis Collins, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisAtrophyMagnetic resonance imagingExpanded Disability Status ScaleMedicineSpinal cordPathologicalPathologyCohortWhite matterCerebral atrophyPsychologyRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiological basis for differences in disability in patients with multiple sclerosis is unclear. METHODS: We used magnetic resonance imaging to examine whether differences in disability in cohorts of multiple sclerosis patients with similar T2-weighted lesion volume and disease duration were associated with a more destructive disease process in the more disabled patients. RESULTS: The benign and severely disabled groups had similar brain atrophy metrics and similar decreases of the neuronal marker, N-acetylaspartate, in the normal appearing white matter of the cerebrum on magnetic resonance spectroscopy examination in vivo. The severely disabled cohort had more spinal cord atrophy. CONCLUSION: The dissociation of spinal cord atrophy and cerebral atrophy between these two groups suggests that the difference between the more benign and more disabled groups cannot be explained by a more aggressive pathological process that is affecting the entire neuroaxis in a homogeneous fashion.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→