Comparing diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly experience cognitive impairment associated with the disease, but there is currently no agreed-upon operational definition for identifying the presence of that impairment, in either research or clinic contexts. The International MS Cognition Society (IMSCOGS) established a task force to begin to examine this issue and this paper represents the results of an initial pilot investigation. The aim of this paper was to compare two criterion sets to determine how to identify cognitive impairment among people with MS: the general Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) Criteria for neurocognitive disorders and criteria derived from existing MS research (scores in two domains fall 1.5 standard deviations below normative controls). METHODS: Two hundred and ten people with MS presented for a brief cognitive evaluation in an MS Multidisciplinary Clinic at a midwestern academic medical center in the United States. Participants were generally middle aged (average 51.5 years), female (73.8%), and white (93.3%). McNemar's test was computed to compare the number of individuals whose cognitive test score performance was deemed cognitively normal, mildly impaired, or more significantly impaired. RESULTS: DSM-5 criteria classified 87.2% of the sample as cognitively impaired, where 66.7% were more mildly impaired and 20.5% more significantly impaired. By contrast, research-based criteria classified 63.3% of the sample as cognitively impaired, with 49.5% as mildly impaired and 13.8% as more significantly impaired. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that compared to research criteria, the DSM-5 criteria classified far more people with MS as having cognitive impairment secondary to the disease. The paper discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of the two diagnostic methods, highlighting that more work will be needed in order to establish a standardized and validated method for characterizing these impairments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".