Evaluation of the 2010 McDonald multiple sclerosis criteria in children with a clinically isolated syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic criteria for paediatric multiple sclerosis have been established on the basis of brain imaging findings alone. The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, however, include spinal cord imaging for detection of lesion dissemination in space. The new criteria have been recommended in paediatric multiple sclerosis. OBJECTIVE: (1) To evaluate the 2010 McDonald multiple sclerosis criteria in children with a clinically isolated syndrome and to compare them with recently proposed magnetic resonance criteria for children; (2) to assess whether the inclusion of spinal cord imaging provided additional value to the 2010 McDonald criteria. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of brain and spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging scans from 52 children with a clinically isolated syndrome. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the magnetic resonance criteria were assessed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The 2010 McDonald dissemination in space criteria were more sensitive (85% versus 74%) but less specific (80% versus 100%) compared to the 2005 McDonald criteria. The Callen criteria were more accurate (89%) compared to the 2010 McDonald (85%), the 2005 McDonald criteria for dissemination in space (81%), the KIDMUS criteria (46%) and the Canadian Pediatric Demyelinating Disease Network criteria (76%). The 2010 McDonald criteria for dissemination in time were more accurate (93%) than the dissemination in space criteria (85%). Inclusion of the spinal cord did not increase the accuracy of the McDonald criteria.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".