MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977655668 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e318216715e

Relationship of UV exposure to prevalence of multiple sclerosis in England

2011· article· en· W1977655668 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. V. Ramagopalan, Adam E. Handel, Gavin Giovannoni, Sue Rutherford Siegel, George C. Ebers, George Chaplin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisNew englandMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential relationship of ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) exposure in explaining the period prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS) in England. METHODS: English national Hospital Episode Statistics covering all admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005 were used to obtain the period prevalences of MS and infectious mononucleosis (IM) in England. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration's data on UVB intensity for England from the Nimbus 7 satellite was collected. The relationships among the 3 variables (MS prevalence, IM prevalence, and UVB intensity) were investigated. RESULTS: The regression of MS against UVB intensity for all seasons had an r(2) of 0.61; when including the interaction of IM with seasonal UVB, the r(2) rose to 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: UVB exposure and IM together can explain a substantial proportion of the variance of MS. The effect of UVB on generating vitamin D seems the most likely candidate for explaining its relationship with MS. There is a pressing need to investigate the role of vitamin D and EBV and how they might interact to influence MS risk to identify potential prevention strategies.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations97
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207