MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391797146 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209135

Investigating the Prevalence of Comorbidity in Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Trial Populations

2024· article· en· W4391797146 on OpenAlexafffund
Amber Salter, Samantha Lancia, Kaarina Kowalec, Kathryn C. Fitzgerald, Ruth Ann Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNovartis PharmaMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSanofiMerck KGaATeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesBiogenU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsComorbidityMedicineClinical trialInternal medicineDepression (economics)Physical therapyAnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Comorbidity is common in multiple sclerosis (MS) with the most prevalent conditions being depression, anxiety, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Limited information regarding the representation of comorbidity status is available from phase III clinical trials in MS leading to concern about the potential underrepresentation of individuals with comorbidity in clinical trials. The objective was to estimate the prevalence of comorbidities in MS clinical trial populations. METHODS: statistic. RESULTS: = 93.2). Heterogeneity was high across trials. Older age and female participants were associated with increased number of comorbidities. Older individuals and male participants had a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, while older individuals and female participants had a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety. DISCUSSION: Individuals with comorbidities are included in clinical trials, although they may still be underrepresented compared with the general MS population. Given the comorbidity prevalence in the trial populations and studies suggesting an association of comorbidities with disease activity, comorbidity may influence outcomes in clinical trials.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.015 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207