Disability progression in multiple sclerosis is slower than previously reported
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate disease progression and risk factors in a large geographically based population with multiple sclerosis (MS), using two different inception points--clinical onset and date of birth. METHODS: The authors reviewed a database of subjects with definite MS and symptom onset prior to July 1988. The main outcome was sustained progression to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 6 (requires a cane), using the date of birth and date of MS onset as inception points in separate analyses. Risk factors examined were sex, relapsing vs primary progressive course, onset age, and onset symptoms. RESULTS: The study included 2,837 patients, followed prospectively for 22,723 patient years. The median time to EDSS 6 was 27.9 years, 15 years after onset; only 21% reached EDSS 6, and by age 50, 28% required a cane. Men progressed 38% more quickly than women from onset (p < 0.0005), yet both required canes at similar ages: 58.8 years for men and 60.1 for women (p = 0.082). A younger onset age predicted a slower progression, but those older at onset were consistently older when reaching EDSS 6. A primary progressive course predicted a more rapid progression from both onset (p < 0.0005) and birth (hazard ratio = 2.7 [95% CI: 2.2 to 3.3]). No onset symptom consistently predicted progression. CONCLUSION: Disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) accrued more slowly than found in earlier longitudinal studies. The authors also challenged two fundamental concepts in MS, demonstrating that neither male sex nor older onset age was associated with worse disease outcome.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".