MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249026402 · doi:10.17925/usn.2011.07.02.84

Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis—A Medical, Sociological, and Media Controversy

2011· article· en· W4249026402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuetouchREVIEWS in Neurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisClinical trialSkepticismIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, Zamboni et al. coined the term “chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency” (CCSVI). On the basis of transcranial and extra-cranial color-coded Doppler ultrasonography, they operationally defined CCSVI as occurring when at least two out of five “abnormalities” were present. They claimed to find CCSVI in 100 % of 109 individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in none of 177 healthy controls. Zamboni’s group subsequently reported an uncontrolled treatment trial of cerebral venoplasty, which was termed the “liberation procedure”, and claimed that the procedure benefited people with MS. The Zamboni reports were received with considerable skepticism, regarding both their biological plausibility and the claims of 100 % sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. No investigators have subsequently been able to replicate the Zamboni observations. Although some additional reports have indicated finding venous abnormalities in more MS patients than in other groups, most have either found no association of CCSVI with MS, or else have found substantial numbers of controls, either healthy or with other neurologic disease, to have the abnormalities. The original Zamboni reports were widely publicized in the mainstream media, especially in Canada, and sparked a raging controversy in the social media. Patients clamored for trials of cerebral venoplasty and others demanded its availability or traveled around the globe to undergo the procedure. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research have now solicited proposals for a Phase I/II clinical trial. At this point, additional scientific studies, including many funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, are moving toward completion and will hopefully allow a proper judgment of the validity of the concept of CCSVI in relationship to MS. In the meantime, it is important that physicians remain respectful of patients’ views, but that they are not reticent about expressing their own professional opinions based on available evidence, while emphasizing the importance of proper scientific research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetouchREVIEWS in NeurologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207