MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149681150 · doi:10.1177/1352458512462918

The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review

2012· review· en· W2149681150 on OpenAlexaff
Edgardo Cristiano, J. I. Rojas, Marina Romano, Nadina Frider, Gerardo Machnicki, Diego Giunta, Dagoberto Calegaro, Teresa Corona, Jesús Piqueras Flores, Fernando Gracia, Miguel Ángel Macías-Islas, Jorge Correale

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyLatin AmericansMultiple sclerosisIncidence (geometry)EtiologyMedicineDemographyPediatricsGeographyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS) varies geographically as shown through extensive epidemiological studies performed mainly in developed countries. Nonetheless, scant data is available in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The objective of this review is to assess epidemiological data of MS in LAC. We conducted a systematic review of published articles and gray literature from January 1995 to May 2011. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria after full-text review. Incidence data were found in only three studies and ranged from 0.3 to 1.9 annual cases per 100,000 person-years. Prevalence was reported in 10 studies and ranged from 0.83 to 21.5 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The most prevalent subtype of MS was the relapsing-remitting form (48% to 91% of the series). No data about mortality were found. This study showed low frequency for MS in LAC compared with North American and European countries. The role of environmental and genetic factors should be well studied, providing new insights about its etiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.300
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.078 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207