Substantial adverse association of visual and vascular comorbidities on visual disability in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual comorbidities are common in multiple sclerosis (MS) but the impact of visual comorbidities on visual disability is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of visual and vascular comorbidities on severity of visual disability in MS. METHODS: In 2006, we queried participants of the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) about cataracts, glaucoma, uveitis, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, heart disease, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. We assessed visual disability using the Vision subscale of Performance Scales. Using Cox regression, we investigated whether visual or vascular comorbidities affected the time between MS symptom onset and the development of mild, moderate and severe visual disability. RESULTS: Of 8983 respondents, 1415 (15.9%) reported a visual comorbidity while 4745 (52.8%) reported a vascular comorbidity. The median (interquartile range) visual score was 1 (0-2). In a multivariable Cox model the risk of mild visual disability was higher among participants with vascular (hazard ratio [HR] 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39-1.51) and visual comorbidities (HR 1.47; 95% CI: 1.37-1.59). Vascular and visual comorbidities were similarly associated with increased risks of moderate and severe visual disability. CONCLUSIONS: Visual and vascular comorbidities are associated with progression of visual disability in MS. Clinicians hearing reports of worsening visual symptoms in MS patients should consider visual comorbidities as contributing factors. Further study of these issues using objective, systematic neuro-ophthalmologic evaluations is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".