MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996334854 · doi:10.1353/bhm.0.0220

A History of Multiple Sclerosis (review)

2009· article· en· W1996334854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisDiseaseMedicineWeaknessBlindnessMedical historyPsychiatryPathologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: A History of Multiple Sclerosis Daniel J. Wilson Colin L. Talley. A History of Multiple Sclerosis. Healing Society: Disease, Medicine, and History. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2008. xvii + 201 pp. Ill. $49.95, £27.95 (978-0-275-99788-5). Historians of medicine have recently turned their attention to multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurological disease marked by difficulty walking, muscle weakness and numbness, and sometimes blindness. MS is now recognized as an autoimmune disease of the brain and spinal cord that causes the destruction of the myelin sheath protecting the nerves and leading to the interruption of nerve impulses and the consequent symptoms. Perhaps 400,000 individuals in the United States and 2.5 million worldwide have MS. Historical evidence suggests that MS has afflicted humans since at least the fourteenth century, but only in the nineteenth century did neurologists differentiate MS from other neurological conditions that caused similar symptoms. Four years ago, T. Jock Murray’s Multiple Sclerosis: The History of a Disease (2005) explored in considerable detail medicine’s efforts to understand and treat this disease. Murray, a Canadian neurologist, also described historical examples of likely MS cases going back to 1395. Colin L. Talley’s short book covers some of the same ground as Murray’s, but Talley focuses instead on the “interaction of society, culture, politics and medical institutions with the organic and material experience of the disease” (p. xvii). In addition to the clinician’s and scientist’s perspectives, Talley provides some insight into the experiences of men and women who have the disease. Talley begins by briefly surveying the emergence of MS as a distinct neurological disease in the nineteenth century. Although he mentions many of the same cases and experimental discoveries as does Murray, Talley’s accounts are much briefer. Talley’s book emphasizes the period following Jean Martin Charcot’s discovery of the characteristic lesions in the spinal cord of individuals with the symptoms of MS. Throughout the book Talley stresses the historical context in which such discoveries were made. For example, Charcot made his discovery because working at Salpêtrière in Paris, he was the first physician to follow patients over the course of their illness in the hospital and then to autopsy their bodies after death. Talley also argues that part of the reason for the emergence of MS as a more widespread disease in the twentieth century was the rise of neurology as a medical specialty and the consequent increase in the number of highly trained neurologists who [End Page 410] could identify this hard-to-diagnose illness. So too, Talley demonstrates how the 1946 establishment of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS), which was modeled on the very successful National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), enabled patients and patient advocates to play an important role in fundraising, in shaping research and clinical priorities, and in framing how individuals with MS thought about the disease and themselves. He also explores the experience of having MS in the second half of the twentieth century largely through patient interviews in the social science literature of the period. Talley’s history could have been stronger had he drawn on the growing number of published MS narratives and memoirs to expand his account of what it was like to live with the disease in the past half century. In addition, a more substantial comparison of the NMSS and NFIP could have shed light on how the differences between polio and multiple sclerosis had an impact on their respective advocacy organizations. Still, Talley’s emphasis on the intersections of society, politics, economics, medical institutions, and patients’ needs and demands gives the reader considerable insight into physicians’ understanding of the disease, the treatment of MS patients, and the experience of having the disease in the late twentieth century. Readers not needing Murray’s detailed account of the science and medicine of MS will find Talley’s book valuable. Daniel J. Wilson Muhlenberg College Copyright © 2009 The Johns Hopkins University Press

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.012

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207