Results from a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of repository corticotropin injection for multiple sclerosis relapse that did not adequately respond to corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gel) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and pituitary peptides that has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. AIMS: The study objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of RCI in patients with MS relapse that inadequately responded to corticosteroids. This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Nonresponders to high-dose corticosteroids were randomized to receive RCI (80 U) or placebo daily for 14 days. Assessments included improvements on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Eighteen patients received RCI, and 17 received placebo. A greater proportion of EDSS responders was observed in the RCI group at Day 7, 21, and 42 compared with the placebo group. Qualitative CGI-I showed that more patients receiving RCI were much improved or very much improved than with placebo. No meaningful differences were observed between treatment groups for MSIS-29. No serious AEs or deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: RCI is safe and effective for MS relapse patients who do not respond to high-dose corticosteroids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".