The EDSS-Plus, an improved endpoint for disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".