MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907962585 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6684673

Attack adjudication in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: Substantiation of criteria by magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers in N-MOmentum

2023· other· en· W6907962585 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromyelitis opticaAdjudicationMagnetic resonance imagingSpectrum disorderRandomized controlled trialLesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:The N-MOmentum trial investigated safety and efficacy of inebilizumab in participants with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD).Objective:Evaluate the attack identification process and adjudication committee (AC) performance in N-MOmentum.Methods:Adults (<i>n</i> = 230) with NMOSD and Expanded Disability Status Scale score ⩽8 were randomized (3:1) to inebilizumab 300 mg or placebo. The randomized controlled period was 28 weeks or until adjudicated attack. Attacks were adjudicated according to 18 predefined criteria. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarker (serum glial fibrillary acidic protein [sGFAP]) analyses were performed.Results:A total of 64 participant-reported neurological events occurred; 51 (80%) were investigator-determined to be attacks. The AC confirmed 43 of the investigator-determined attacks (84%). There was high inter- and intra-AC-member agreement. In 25/64 events (39%) and 14/43 AC-adjudicated attacks (33%), MRI was reviewed during adjudication. Retrospective analysis revealed new domain-specific T1 and T2 MRI lesions in 90% of adjudicated attacks. Increased mean sGFAP concentrations (&gt;2-fold change) from baseline were observed in 56% of adjudicated attacks versus 14% of investigator-determined attacks rejected by the AC and 31% of participant-reported events determined not to be attacks.Conclusion:AC adjudication of NMOSD attacks according to predefined criteria appears robust. MRI lesion correlates and sGFAP elevations were found in most adjudicated attacks.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207