Which symptoms contribute the most to patients’ perception of health in multiple sclerosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Multiple sclerosis is a polysymptomatic disease. Little is known about relative contributions of the different multiple sclerosis symptoms to self-perception of health. Objectives To investigate the relationship between symptom severity in 11 domains affected by multiple sclerosis and self-rated health. Methods Multiple sclerosis patients in two multiple sclerosis centers assessed self-rated health with a validated instrument and symptom burden with symptoMScreen, a validated battery of Likert scales for 11 domains commonly affected by multiple sclerosis. Pearson correlations and multivariate linear regressions were used to investigate the relationship between symptoMScreen scores and self-rated health. Results Among 1865 multiple sclerosis outpatients (68% women, 78% with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, mean age 46.38 ± 12.47 years, disease duration 13.43 ± 10.04 years), average self-rated health score was 2.30 (‘moderate to good’). Symptom burden (composite symptoMScreen score) highly correlated with self-rated health ( r = 0.68, P < 0.0001) as did each of the symptoMScreen domain subscores. In regression analysis, pain ( t = 7.00), ambulation ( t = 6.91), and fatigue ( t = 5.85) contributed the highest amount of variance in self-rated health ( P < 0.001). Conclusions Pain contributed the most to multiple sclerosis outpatients’ perception of health, followed by gait dysfunction and fatigue. These findings suggest that ‘invisible disability’ may be more important to patients’ sense of wellbeing than physical disability, and challenge the notion that physical disability should be the primary outcome measure in multiple sclerosis.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".