The frequency of CSF oligoclonal banding in multiple sclerosis increases with latitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the advent of MRI scanning, the value of lumbar puncture to assess oligoclonal band (OCB) status-for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is increasingly uncertain. One major issue is that the reported frequency of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-restricted oligoclonal banding for the diagnosis of MS varies considerably in different studies. In addition, the relationship between OCB positivity and disease outcome remains uncertain, as reported studies are generally too small to assess comparative disability outcomes with sufficient power. METHODS: In order to further investigate variation of OCB positivity in patients with MS, we utilized MSBase, a longitudinal, Web-based collaborative MS outcomes registry following clinical cohorts in several continents and latitudes. We also assessed whether OCB positivity affects long-term disability outcome. RESULTS: A total of 13,242 patient records were obtained from 37 MS specialist centres in 19 different countries. OCB status was documented in 4481 (34%) patients and 80% of these were OCB positive. The presence of OCB was associated with degree of latitude (p = 0.02). Furthermore, the outcome of patients negative for CSF-specific OCB was significantly better in comparison to the OCB positive patients, as assessed by Expanded Disability Status Scale change (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that latitude could explain some of the inconsistencies in OCB status reported in different populations. The study confirms that OCB positivity in MS is associated with a worse long-term prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".