MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385064560 · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(23)00148-5

Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: an updated consensus approach

2023· review· en· W4385064560 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Solomon, Georgina Arrambide, Wallace Brownlee, Eoin P. Flanagan, Maria Pia Amato, Lilyana Amezcua, Brenda Banwell, Frederik Barkhof, John R. Corboy, Jorge Correale, Kazuo Fujihara, Jennifer Graves, Mary Pat Harnegie, Bernhard Hemmer, Jeannette Lechner‐Scott, Ruth Ann Marrie, Scott D. Newsome, Maria A. Rocca, Walter Royal, Emmanuelle Waubant, Bassem Yamout, Jeffrey A. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChugai PharmaceuticalMedDay PharmaceuticalsIXICOEMD SeronoFondation CharcotEisaiDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaGenentechHorizon TherapeuticsFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaCelgeneMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyMylanTG TherapeuticsMultiple Sclerosis SocietyEuropean Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple SclerosisBiogenProthenaGreenwich BiosciencesAlexion PharmaceuticalsOhio State UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesEuropean CommissionEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMultiple Sclerosis International FederationSanofiEmory UniversityPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineDifferential diagnosisMedical diagnosisNeurologyIntensive care medicineClinical trialDiseasePediatricsPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations140
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207