Pathological study of spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis suggests limited role of local lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imaging studies in multiple sclerosis have shown that spinal cord atrophy correlates with clinical disability. The pathological substrate of atrophy has not as yet been investigated adequately. In order to determine the cause of spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis, five different sections of the spinal cord were examined histopathologically in 33 controls and 55 multiple sclerosis cases. In the multiple sclerosis cases in each section the total lesion load and the cross-sectional area of the cord were measured. Multiple regression models were estimated, controlling for sex, age, duration of the disease and location of the cord sections. The multiple sclerosis cords were found to be significantly smaller than the controls. The duration of the disease played the most important role in determining cord atrophy. The degree of atrophy varied in different parts of the cord. Individual lesions played a minor role in local atrophy. Our findings suggest that axonal degeneration, possibly caused by the cumulative number of lesions in the brain and cord, or an alternative atrophic process, is responsible for spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis, rather than tissue loss within individual lesions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".