Comparison of psychiatric disturbances in patients with multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica (NMO) are demyelinating diseases, their psychiatric disturbances may differ given differences in the neurological manifestations. We used subjective and objective measurements to compare the psychiatric disturbances in patients with MS and NMO.Psychiatric disturbances were assessed in 24 MS and 35 NMO patients using the Beck Hopelessness Scale, Symptom Checklist-95 and the brief version of World Health Organization Quality of Life. Personality was assessed using the Big Five Inventory-10. Disease-related function was assessed using the Fatigue Severity Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the Global Assessment of Function. Positivity offset (PO) and negativity bias (NB) and heart rate variability (HRV) were measured using a modified implicit affect test and photoplethysmograph, respectively. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with age and sex as covariates.MS patients had higher levels of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, obsessive-compulsiveness, aggression, paranoia, interpersonal sensitivity, self-regulation problems, stress vulnerability, and lower psychological quality of life (QOL) compared with NMO patients. The PO and NB and HRV values were not significantly different between groups. However, NMO patients had lower QOL, and higher levels of hopelessness, suicidality, and fatigue than the normal range. Disease duration was associated with hopelessness in NMO patients and with several psychiatric disturbances, but not hopelessness, in MS patients.Subjective psychiatric disturbances were more severe in patients with MS than in those with NMO, whereas PO and NB and HRV in patients with NMO were comparable with those of MS patients. Our findings highlight the need for different clinical approaches to assess and treat psychiatric disturbances in patients with MS and NMO.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".