MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118540877 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.525933

Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein (MOG) Antibody Positive Patients in a Multi-Ethnic Canadian Cohort

2021· article· en· W3118540877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Cross, Farahna Sabiq, Nathalie Ackermans, Andrew Mattar, Shelly Au, Mark Woodhall, Bo Sun, Virginia Devonshire, Robert Carruthers, Ana Luiza Sayao, Virender Bhan, Alice Schabas, Jillian Chan, Marvin J. Fritzler, Patrick Waters, Anthony Traboulsee

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyelin oligodendrocyte glycoproteinMedicineNeuromyelitis opticaOptic neuritisMultiple sclerosisCohortImmunologyPopulationInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsExperimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibody-associated disease is a recently described central nervous system (CNS) inflammatory disorder with phenotypic overlap with Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD). NMOSD seronegative patients, and those with limited forms of the disorder, become suspects for MOG antibody-associated disease. We describe a multi-ethnic population with MOG antibody seropositivity from the University of British Columbia MS/NMO clinic. Methods: AQP4-antibody seronegative patients presenting 2005–2016 with CNS inflammatory disease suspicious for NMOSD, as well as 20 MS controls, were retrospectively tested for MOG-IgG1 antibodies by live cell-based assay at Oxford Autoimmune Neurology Diagnostic Laboratory (UK) and by a commercial fixed cell-based assay at MitogenDx (Calgary, Canada). Additional MOG seropositive cases were identified through routine clinical interaction (2016–2018) using one of these laboratories. Clinical data was reviewed retrospectively. Results: Retrospective testing identified 21 MOG seropositives (14 by live assay only, 3 by fixed assay only and 4 by both) representing 14% of the “NMOSD suspects” cohort. One multiple sclerosis (MS) control serum was MOG seropositive. Twenty additional MOG positive cases were identified prospectively. Of 42 patients (27 female), median disease onset age was 29 years (range 3–62; 9 pediatric cases), 20 (47%) were non-Caucasian, and 3 (7%) had comorbid autoimmune disease. Most common onset phenotypes were optic neuritis (23, 55%; 8 bilateral) and myelitis (9, 21%; 6 longitudinally extensive) Three of the patients in our cohort experienced cortical encephalitis; two presented with seizures. Onset was moderate-severe in 64%, but 74% had good response to initial steroid therapy. Cumulative relapse probability for the MOG positive group at 1 year was 0.428 and at 4 years was 0.628. Most had abnormal brain imaging, including cortical encephalitis and poorly demarcated subcortical and infratentorial lesions. Few “classic MS” lesions were seen. Optic nerve lesions (frequently bilateral) were long and predominantly anterior, but 5 extended to the chiasm. Spinal cord lesions were long and short, with involvement of multiple spinal regions simultaneously, including the conus medullaris. Conclusions: Our MOG seropositive patients display phenotypes similar to previous descriptions, including cortical lesions with seizures and conus medullaris involvement. Many patients relapsed, predominantly in a different CNS location from onset. Serologic data from two different cell-based antibody assays highlight the discrepancies between live and fixed testing for MOG antibodies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207