MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399764887 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209444

Using the Progression Independent of Relapse Activity Framework to Unveil the Pathobiological Foundations of Multiple Sclerosis

2024· article· en· W4399764887 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Olga Ciccarelli, Frederik Barkhof, Massimiliano Calabrese, Nicola De Stefano, Arman Eshaghi, Massimo Filippi, Claudio Gasperini, Cristina Granziera, Ludwig Kappos, Maria A. Rocca, Àlex Rovira, Jaume Sastre‐Garriga, Maria Pia Sormani, Carmen Tur, Ahmed Toosy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEMD SeronoInnosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für InnovationsförderungMinistero della SaluteSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSanofiEuropean CommissionMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaMedical Research CouncilBiogenCelgeneNovo NordiskTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchHorizon Therapeutics
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), a recent concept to formalize disability accrual in multiple sclerosis (MS) independent of relapses, has gained popularity as a potential clinical trial outcome. We discuss its shortcomings and appraise the challenges of implementing it in clinical settings, experimental trials, and research. The current definition of PIRA assumes that acute inflammation, which can manifest as a relapse, and neurodegeneration, manifesting as progressive disability accrual, can be disentangled by introducing specific time windows between the onset of relapses and the observed increase in disability. The term PIRMA (progression independent of relapse and MRI activity) was recently introduced to indicate disability accrual in the absence of both clinical relapses and new brain and spinal cord MRI lesions. Assessing PIRMA in clinical practice is highly challenging because it necessitates frequent clinical assessments and brain and spinal cord MRI scans. PIRA is commonly assessed using Expanded Disability Status Scale, a scale heavily weighted toward motor disability, whereas a more granular assessment of disability deterioration, including cognitive decline, using composite measures or other tools, such as digital tools, would possess greater utility. Similarly, using PIRA as an outcome measure in randomized clinical trials is also challenging and requires methodological considerations. The underpinning pathobiology of disability accumulation, that is not associated with relapses, may encompass chronic active lesions (slowly expanding lesions and paramagnetic rim lesions), cortical lesions, brain and spinal cord atrophy, particularly in the gray matter, diffuse and focal microglial activation, persistent leptomeningeal enhancement, and white matter tract damage. We propose to use PIRA to understand the main determinant of disability accrual in observational, cohort studies, where regular MRI scans are not included, and introduce the term of "advanced-PIRMA" to investigate the contributions to disability accrual of the abovementioned processes, using conventional and advanced imaging. This is supported by the knowledge that MRI reflects the MS pathogenic mechanisms better than purely clinical descriptors. Any residual disability accrual, which remains unexplained after considering all these mechanisms with imaging, will highlight future research priorities to help complete our understanding of MS pathogenesis.

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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations71
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207