MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387599047 · doi:10.1177/13524585231202320

Relapse recovery in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: An analysis of the CombiRx dataset

2023· article· en· W4387599047 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Koch, Ester Moral, Luís Brieva, Jop Mostert, Eva Strijbis, Jacynthe Comtois, Pavle Repovic, James D. Bowen, Jerry S. Wolinsky, Fred Lublin, Gary Cutter

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSanofi GenzymeEMD SeronoAtara BiotherapeuticsBioDelivery Sciences InternationalAcorda TherapeuticsSanofiGW PharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthMylanTG TherapeuticsJazz PharmaceuticalsAveXisUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonPfizerBiogenCelgeneAbbVieCleveland Clinic FoundationBristol-Myers SquibbCleveland ClinicAlexion PharmaceuticalsTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesCSL BehringMedDay PharmaceuticalsHorizon PharmaceuticalsGenentechNational Multiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisRelapsing remittingMedicineProportional hazards modelClinical trialInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical relapses are the defining feature of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), but relatively little is known about the time course of relapse recovery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the time course of and patient factors associated with the speed and success of relapse recovery in people with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). METHODS: Using data from CombiRx, a large RRMS trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00211887), we measured the time to recovery from the first on-trial relapse. We used Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox regression models to investigate the association of patient factors with the time to unconfirmed and confirmed relapse recovery. RESULTS: CombiRx included 1008 participants. We investigated 240 relapses. Median time to relapse recovery was 111 days. Most recovery events took place within 1 year of relapse onset: 202 of 240 (84%) individuals recovered during follow-up, 161 of 202 (80%) by 180 days, and 189 of 202 (94%) by 365 days. Relapse severity was the only factor associated with relapse recovery. CONCLUSION: Recovery from relapses takes place up to approximately 1 year after the event. Relapse severity, but no other patient factors, was associated with the speed of relapse recovery. Our findings inform clinical practice and trial design in RRMS.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207