MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3171002168 · doi:10.1101/2021.05.31.21258017

IgG index and not serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with age at onset of multiple sclerosis

2021· preprint· en· W3171002168 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pernilla Stridh, Ingrid Kockum, Jesse Huang

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaEuropean Genomic Institute for Diabetes
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisAge of onsetVitamin D and neurologyInternal medicineGastroenterologyDiseasevitamin D deficiencyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Vitamin D deficiency is associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, its effect on the age of disease onset remains unclear. This study examines the relationship between serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and age of first symptom onset among recently diagnosed MS patients. Method Serum 25(OH)D was measured from forty MS patients sampled near disease onset. After correcting seasonal variability, a multivariable linear regression was used to examine associations to age at onset. Results Serum 25(OH)D was not correlated with age at onset (P>0.5). However, CSF IgG index was lower among patients with later disease onset (β=-5.35, P=0.028). Furthermore, we observed bias resulting from non-random distribution of sampling by season, which after correcting indicates a higher 25(OH)D level among patients sampled at relapse compared to remission, instead of lower as previously reported. Conclusion In summary, serum 25(OH)D was not associated with the age at onset.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→