MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974431723 · doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2012-048

The Incidence and Prevalence of Neuromyelitis Optica

2013· article· en· W1974431723 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Ann Marrie, Caroline Gryba

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of MS Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuromyelitis opticaIncidence (geometry)PediatricsDermatologyImmunologyMultiple sclerosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has increased substantially over the last few years, but it is not known whether NMO has the same geographic and temporal variations in disease risk as multiple sclerosis (MS). We aimed to evaluate the worldwide incidence and prevalence of NMO through a systematic review of published peer-reviewed studies. We performed a search of the English-language literature using MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1985 to March 2012. Search terms included "neuromyelitis optica," "Devic's," "opticospinal," "incidence," "prevalence," and "epidemiology." We assessed study quality using a standardized instrument. A total of five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies were from North America, and all studies were published between 2005 and 2012. All studies were of good quality, but only one study reported standardized rates, and subgroup-specific estimates were rarely reported. The incidence of NMO per 100,000 population ranged from 0.053 to 0.40, while the prevalence per 100,000 population ranged from 0.52 to 4.4. Heterogeneity was high among the incidence (I(2) = 68.0%) and prevalence studies (I(2) = 94.0%). This review highlights the limited knowledge regarding the epidemiology of NMO and the importance of obtaining estimates standardized to common populations to enhance comparability of studies from different jurisdictions. Future studies would also benefit from reporting age-, sex-, and race- or ethnicity-specific estimates.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of MS CareSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207