Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus method for determining progression of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) when each patient has had only a single assessment in the course of the disease. METHODS: Using data from two large longitudinal databases, the authors tested whether cross-sectional disability assessments are representative of disease severity as a whole. An algorithm, the Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS), which relates scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) to the distribution of disability in patients with comparable disease durations, was devised and then applied to a collection of 9,892 patients from 11 countries to create the Global MSSS. In order to compare different methods of detecting such effects the authors simulated the effects of a genetic factor on disability. RESULTS: Cross-sectional EDSS measurements made after the first year were representative of overall disease severity. The MSSS was more powerful than the other methods the authors tested for detecting different rates of disease progression. CONCLUSION: The Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS) is a powerful method for comparing disease progression using single assessment data. The Global MSSS can be used as a reference table for future disability comparisons. While useful for comparing groups of patients, disease fluctuation precludes its use as a predictor of future disability in an individual.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".