MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412111210 · doi:10.1177/13524585251353044

High-risk populations should be screened for MS: Yes

2025· article· en· W4412111210 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Tremlett

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisMedicineBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primum non nocere -first, do no harm Screening high-risk populations in clinical practice and research settingsScreening is the process of testing or checking for disease when there are no symptoms.1 Screening entails potential benefits -early detection of disease, early treatment with the goal of maximizing health outcomes while minimizing harms.Harms can include unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatments, health anxiety, employment issues, lost work productivity, difficulty with obtaining life insurance and financial costs. 2 Mammography offers a salient example of a screening test used in clinical practice.When offered to specific groups -females aged 50-69 years -this imaging tool can reduce mortality from breast cancer.2 Thus, benefits include early detection and improved treatment outcomes.Harms, however, include false positives, overdiagnosis, unnecessary invasive tests, distress, unwarranted surgery and radiation exposure.2

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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