Traumatic Injury and Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review/meta-analysis of literature addressing a possible association between traumatic injury and onset of multiple sclerosis was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane DSR, Ovid HealthStar, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus were searched for analytical studies from 1950 to 2011. Two investigators independently reviewed articles for inclusion, assessing their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of the 13 case-control studies included, 8 were moderate quality and 5 low; of the 3 cohort studies 2 were high and 1 moderate. Meta-analysis including moderate and low quality case-control studies produced a modest but significant odds ratio: 1.41 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.93). However, when low quality studies were excluded, the resulting odds ratio was non-significant. Cohort studies produced a non-significant standardized incidence ratio of 1.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.86, 1.16). These findings support the conclusion that there is no association between traumatic injury and multiple sclerosis onset; more high quality cohort studies would help to confirm this observation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".