The EDSS-Plus, an improved endpoint for disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has wide scientific and regulatory precedent but limited ability to detect clinically relevant disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients, partly due to a lack of meaningful measurement of short-distance ambulatory and upper-extremity function. OBJECTIVE: To present a rationale for a composite endpoint adding the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) and 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) to EDSS for SPMS disability progression assessment. METHODS: Using the International Multiple Sclerosis Secondary Progressive Avonex Clinical Trial (IMPACT) placebo arm ( n = 215) data, we analyzed disability progression using a novel progression endpoint, "EDSS-Plus," defined as progression on ⩾1 of 3 components (EDSS, T25FW, and/or 9HPT) confirmed ⩾24 weeks apart and with a ⩾20% minimum threshold change for T25FW and 9HPT. RESULTS: Over 2 years, subjects classified as T25FW, 9HPT (dominant hand), or 9HPT (non-dominant hand) progressors worsened on average by 103.4%, 69.0%, and 59.2%, respectively, while non-progressors' times remained largely unchanged. Using EDSS-Plus, 59.5% of the patients had 24-week confirmed disability progression versus 24.7% (EDSS), 41.9% (T25FW), and 34.4% (9HPT (either hand)) on each component alone. CONCLUSION: The 24-week confirmed minimum worsening of ⩾20% for T25FW and 9HPT clearly separates SPMS progressors from non-progressors. We propose that EDSS-Plus may represent an improved endpoint to identify SPMS disability progression.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it