Is late-onset multiple sclerosis associated with a worse outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of late-onset multiple sclerosis (MS) (LOMS, 50+ years) vs adult-onset MS (AOMS, 16 to <50 years) and examine prognosis and associated risk factors. METHODS: Patients with definite MS, onset prior to July 1988, registered with a BCMS clinic before July 1998, with at least one Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, were selected from the longitudinal population-based British Columbian (BC) MS database. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between LO and AOMS. Progression was measured as time to reach sustained EDSS 6 and potential risk factors examined were sex, disease course (primary progressive [PP] vs relapsing [R]), and onset symptoms. RESULTS: Of those eligible (n = 2,837), LOMS comprised 132 (4.7%), with PPMS predominating (54.5% vs 10.6% in AOMS, p < 0.0005). Motor onset symptoms were more prevalent in LOMS and sensory and optic neuropathy more prevalent in AOMS (p < 0.0005). AOMS averaged 27.7 years (95% CI: 26.3 to 29.1) to EDSS 6 from onset vs 16.9 years (95% CI: 9.0 to 24.8) in LOMS, p < 0.0005. However, AOMS was associated with a younger age at EDSS 6 (58.4 years [95% CI: 57.1 to 59.6] vs 71.2 years [95% CI: 65.2 to 77.3] in LOMS, p < 0.0005). There were no differences in progression between AO or LO for those with PPMS (p = 0.373) or R-MS (p = 0.438), although considerable variation was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Late-onset multiple sclerosis (LOMS) is not necessarily associated with a worse outcome: first, progression in the primary progressive or relapsing patients differed little between late-onset vs adult-onset; secondly, those with LOMS were older when reaching Expanded Disability Status Scale 6. The disease course has a far greater implication for disease prognosis than the presence of LOMS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".