MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225007718 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200549

Association of No Evidence of Disease Activity With No Long-term Disability Progression in Multiple Sclerosis

2022· article· en· W4225007718 on OpenAlexaff
Dalia Rotstein, Jacqueline M. Solomon, Maria Pia Sormani, Xavier Montalbán, Xiang Y. Ye, Dina Dababneh, Alexandra Muccilli, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisAssociation (psychology)MedicineTerm (time)DiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) and no long-term disability progression on low- and high-efficacy therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database were searched from January 1, 2006, to January 26, 2021. We selected studies that evaluated NEDA-3 (no relapse, new MRI lesion, or confirmed disability progression) at 1 or 2 years and had a minimum of 4 years of follow-up for determination of disability progression. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and were meta-analyzed with a random-effects model. Primary outcome of no disability progression was defined as no confirmed progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale during follow-up. We assessed the odds ratio (OR) for no disability progression with NEDA vs evidence of disease activity (EDA). Positive predictive value (PPV) of NEDA for no disability progression was summarized for studies with prevalence of no progression >80% vs ≤80% separately. RESULTS: = 86%) for high-efficacy therapy. Among studies with prevalence of no progression at follow-up >80%, the pooled PPV for low efficacy therapy was 91% (95% CI 89%-93%) and for high-efficacy therapy was 92% (95% CI 88%-94%). Among studies with prevalence of no progression ≤80%, the pooled PPV for low-efficacy therapy was 81% (95% CI 75%-86%) and for high-efficacy therapy was 86% (95% CI 80%-90%). DISCUSSION: NEDA-3 is associated with no long-term disability progression in RRMS on both low- and high-efficacy therapies. Further studies of early composite outcome measures incorporating easily measurable biomarkers and longer follow-up may help to improve the prognostic value of NEDA-3 in RRMS. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42020189316.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.043
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207