Downward Educational Trajectory Is Seen In Children And Young Adults After Diagnosis Of Pediatric MS (P2.235)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in educational and employment status in pediatric onset MS (POMS) and the relationship between educational status and brain volume. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies suggest a relationship between educational attainment and employment in adults with MS, with the underlying hypothesis that progressive MS pathology can impact cognition and subsequent work capacity. Little is known about educational trajectory and extent of MS pathology in POMS patients as they enter the employment world in adulthood. DESIGN/METHODS: Longitudinal evaluation of prospectively collected data on individuals with POMS reaching adulthood (1999-2013) attending a Pediatric MS clinic. Information collected included: demographics, annualized relapse rate (ARR), disability (EDSS), educational status, total brain volume, T1 and T2 lesion volumes, fatigue and depression. Ethics approval was received. RESULTS: 23 (F=15) individuals with POMS were included; follow up: 5.4±2.7 years; age at onset 14.1±2.3. At first attack, 100% attended school full-time (19/23 (83%) average or above average marks in school, 4/23 (17%) with an Individualized Education Plan (e.g. extra help) (IEP) or with below average marks). At last visit (average 4.5±2.9 years after diagnosis, average age 19.5±1.95) 9/23 (39%) had discontinued school, had below average marks, or had an IEP. MRI analysis (n=14) demonstrated age-expected brain volumes. The decline in educational performance was not significantly associated with the presence of fatigue, depression, EDSS, relapse rate, brain volume or lesion load. CONCLUSIONS: Despite preserved brain volumes and relatively low levels of disability, POMS patients demonstrated a decline in educational attainment. Future studies will explore (1) more detailed cognitive analyses, (2) tissue specific analysis using advanced brain imaging techniques to determine whether degenerative changes within individuals can account in part for this downward trajectory in education and (3) the relationship between this downward trajectory and subsequent employment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".