MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236712847 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100050393

CJN volume 30 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

2003· article· en· W4236712847 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel Weiss, Donald F. Weaver, Xueping Fan, Guy A. Rouleau, John M. Stewart, Stephen Shantz, Stéphanie Christen‐Zaech, Rudolf Kraftsik, O. Pillevuit, Meredith Kiraly, Ralph N. Martins, Kamel Khalili, Judith Miklossy, S. Terence Myles, Sean McAleer, Yung‐Yang Lin, Matti Kajola, Cory Toth, Sheri Harder, Jerome Y. Yager, Andrew Howard, David Li, Joël Oger, David M. Pelz, Gary G. Ferguson, S Lownie, Edward Kachur, Experimental Neurosciences, Giuseppina Mariucci, Maria Antonietta Stasi, Roberto Taurelli, Paolo Nardd, Michela Tantucci, Licia Pacifici, Paolo Carminati, Maria Vittoria, Ambrosini Highlight, Alim P. Mitha, John H. Wong, Du Plessis, Stephen J. Hentschel, Brian Toyota, P. Daniel McNeely, W Howes, Vivek Mehta, Joseph Bampoe, Paul J. Ranalli, Mark Bernstein, Serhan Sevim, Mustafa Aktekin, Okan Doğu, Hakan Öztürk, Mustafa Ertaş, Douglas Calgary, William Calgary, Andrés M. Lozano, James Toronto, Robert Lee, Robert Winnipeg, Timothy Benstead Halifax, Ns Gregory, Caimcross Calgary, Richard Desbiens, Quebec City, J. N. Findlay, Hans‐Peter Hartung, Germany Renn, Holness Halifax, Alan A. Jackson, Jack H. Jhamandas, A Douglas, Kondziolka Pittsburgh, Terence Calgary, John H. Noseworthy, Usa David, Ramsay London, Peter Richardson London, U Guy, Rouleau Montreal, Shashi Winnipeg, Michael Montreal, Paul Vancouver, Jonathan Stoessl, B Samuel, Wiebe London, Neuroimaginghighlightlneuroimagerie Mark, Hudon Calgary, A William, David London, Christopher Calgary, Managing Directorlgerant, Sally Calgary, Greg L. Bryan, Young London, Owen Winnipg, Joseph Etobicoke, Noel Saskatoon, Sally Gregg, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, L Lafleur, Jun Wada, A. L. Davis, David G. Victor, Walham Green, Walter J. Stark, Frank C. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront coverCover (algebra)Front (military)Volume (thermodynamics)Content (measure theory)Environmental scienceComputer scienceGeographyMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringMeteorologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rebit relative benefits vs. Reduced Delayed relapse rate progression of disability §jfj §|#fgt 8i«aa»i (1.73 vs. 2.56 with placebo, (21.3 vs. 11.9 months with placebo, mean, p<0.005) first quartile, p<0.05, delay in time to confirmed first progression) placebo Reduced burden of disease (-3.8% vs. +10.9%with placebo, median, p< 0.0001, as measured by MR!) In two pivotal studies, including a total of 628 patients, Rebif showed significant efficacy in three major outcomes (relapses, disability progression and MRI).U Its ability to affect the course of the disease 2 has made Rebif not only a good first-line choice for relapsing-remitting MS, but the leading drug in Results of the 44 meg TIW dose at 2 years. 1 H-S CmSS.Rebif is generally well-tolerated.The most common adverse events are often manageable and decrease in frequency and severity over time.2t Rebif alters the natural course of relapsing-remitting MS. 2 Rebif" is indicated for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in patients with an EDSS between 0 and 5.0, to reduce the number and severity of clinical exacerbations, slow the progression of physical disability, reduce the requirement for steroids, and reduce the number of hospitalizations for treatment of multiple sclerosis.The efficacy of Rebif has been confirmed by Ti-Gd enhanced and T2 (burden of disease) MRI evaluations.2 t The most common adverse events reported are injection-site disorders (all) (92.4% vs. 38.5% placebo), upper respiratory tract infections (74.5% vs. 85.6% placebo), headache (70.1% vs. 62.6% placebo), flu-like symptoms (58.7% vs. 51.3%placebo), fatigue (41.3% vs. 35.8%placebo) and fever (27.7% vs. 15.5% placebo).Evidence of safety and efficacy derived from 2-year data only.Please see product monograph for full prescribing information.2 t Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Rebif 44 meg TIW group (n=184), Rebif 22 meg TIW group (n=189), placebo group (n=187).'A Fictitious case may not be representative of results for the general population. ~-.seronoInterferon b«ta-1aFOR MULTIPLE REASONS.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7380.479

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207