Application and a proposed modification of the 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in a Canadian cohort of patients with clinically isolated syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2005 and 2010 McDonald criteria utilize magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to provide evidence of disease dissemination in space (DIS) and time (DIT) for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients who have clinically isolated syndromes (CIS). METHODS: Data from 109 CIS patients not satisfying the 2005 criteria at entry into a randomized controlled minocycline trial were analyzed to determine the proportion who would have been diagnosed with MS at screening based on 2010 criteria. The impact of including symptomatic, as well as asymptomatic, MRI lesions to confirm DIT was also explored. RESULTS: Thirty percent (33/109) of patients, retrospectively, met the 2010 criteria for a diagnosis of MS at baseline. When both symptomatic and asymptomatic lesions were used to confirm DIT, three additional patients met the 2010 criteria. There was a significant 10.1% increase in the proportion of patients who met the 2010 DIS criteria, compared with the 2005 DIS criteria; however, two patients satisfied the 2005 DIS but not 2010 DIS criteria. CONCLUSION: Using 2010 McDonald criteria, 30% of the CIS patients could be diagnosed with MS using a single MRI scan. Inclusion of symptomatic lesions in the DIT criteria further increases this proportion to 33%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".