Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to describe recent observations regarding the basis for the initiation and disease evolution of multiple sclerosis. RECENT FINDINGS: A current debate is where and what initiates the neuroinflammatory reaction that characterizes the acute multiple sclerosis lesion. Immune sensitization to neural antigens could develop within the systemic compartment consequent to exposure to cross-reacting, possibly viral derived, peptides (molecular mimicry). Although CD4 T cells are considered central to initiating central nervous system inflammation, the actual extent and specificity of tissue injury reflects the array of adaptive (CD8 T cells and antibody) and innate (microglia/macrophages) immune constituents present in the lesions. Neuropathologic studies indicate that lethal changes in neural cells (oligodendrocytes) could also be the initiating event, reflecting as yet unidentified acquired insults (e.g. exogenous virus or reactivated endogenous retrovirus) or intrinsic abnormalities ('neurodegenerative' hypothesis). Recurrence or persistence of the disease process can reflect events occurring at multiple sites including expansion of the immune repertoire in response to neural antigens transported to regional lymph nodes (determinant spreading), especially if immune regulatory mechanisms are defective; alterations in blood-brain barrier properties consequent to initial cellular transmigration; and participation of endogenous (microglia, astrocytes) or long lived infiltrating cells (macrophages, B cells in ectopic germinal centers) in regulating and effecting immune functions within the central nervous system. Accumulating neurologic deficit reflects the balance between injury and repair; the latter also being negatively or positively (trophic support and clearance of tissue debris) impacted by inflammatory processes. SUMMARY: Understanding the full spectrum of multiple sclerosis presents a continuing challenge for both immunology and neurobiology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".