Comparative efficacy of therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the relative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) including newer therapies (ozanimod, ponesimod, ublituximab) using network meta-analysis (NMA). Materials & methods: Bayesian NMAs for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to 3-month and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP and 6mCDP) were conducted. Results: For each outcome, the three most efficacious treatments versus placebo were monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies: alemtuzumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab for ARR; alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab for 3mCDP; and alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and either ocrelizumab or ofatumumab (depending on the CDP definition used for included ofatumumab trials) for 6mCDP. Conclusion: The most efficacious DMTs for RMS were mAb therapies. Of the newer therapies, only ublituximab ranked among the three most efficacious treatments (for ARR).
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".