Oral versus Intravenous Steroids for Treatment of Relapses in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objective of this review is to test the hypothesis that intravenous steroid treatment and oral steroid treatment in the context of acute MS relapses are equally efficacious and safe. The following is a detailed list of objectives for this review: Primary Objective To determine if there is a difference in efficacy with respect to the degree of clinical relapse recovery between oral an intravenous steroid treatment given at the time of relapse in patients with a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Secondary Objectives 1. To examine the need for retreatment of relapse event 2. To measure the subsequent relapses rate, timing and disability 3. To assess the nature and frequency of adverse events ranging from minor to serious 4. To measure the direct and indirect cost of the relapse event monetarily and in service demand and lost productivity 5. To assess the need for hospitalization 6. To measure quality of life 7. To evaluate the bioavailability of the different steroid routes of administration 8. To measure the change and presence of immunological markers 9. To measure the change and presence of MRI lesions of the CNS
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".