MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200597408 · doi:10.1177/13524585211061335

Autoimmunity and long-term safety and efficacy of alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis: Benefit/risk following review of trial and post-marketing data

2021· review· en· W4200597408 on OpenAlexaff
Alasdair Coles, Joanne Jones, Patrick Vermersch, Anthony Traboulsee, Ann Bass, Aaron Boster, Andrew Chan, Gıancarlo Comı, Óscar Fernández, Gavin Giovannoni, Eva Havrdová, Christopher LaGanke, Xavier Montalbán, Celia Oreja‐Guevara, Fredrik Piehl, Heinz Wiendl, Tjalf Ziemssen

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersbluebird bioWellcome TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSanofi
KeywordsAlemtuzumabAutoimmunityMultiple sclerosisMedicineImmunologyAdverse effectAutoimmune diseaseDiseaseInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does preexisting or treatment-emergent autoimmunity increase the risk of subsequent autoimmune disease in individuals with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) after alemtuzumab? In the extended phase 2/3 trials, 34/96 (35.4%) patients with and 395/1120 (35.3%) without preexisting autoimmunity developed non-MS autoimmunity. Thyroid autoimmunity after alemtuzumab courses 1 or 2 did not increase subsequent non-thyroid autoimmune adverse events. Therefore, autoimmune disease before or after alemtuzumab treatment does not predict autoimmunity after further courses, so should not preclude adequate alemtuzumab dosing to control MS. Finally, post-marketing safety data contribute toward a full record of the alemtuzumab benefit/risk profile for the MS field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207