Risk of serious infections in multiple sclerosis patients by disease course and disability status: Results from a Swedish register-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Serious infections are an emerging concern with increasing use of potent immunomodulation in multiple sclerosis (MS), but the extent to which MS disease features influence infectious susceptibility is poorly characterized. The objective of this study was to assess the associations of MS disease course and disability status with risk of serious infections. Methods: A cohort of 8660 MS patients was individually matched on age, sex and region of residence with 86,600 people without MS from the general population using national registers in Sweden. The study period was from 1996 to 2012, with follow-up until December 31, 2014. The main outcomes were infection as the underlying or contributory cause of death or infection-related hospital admission identified in the Cause of Death and Patient registers. MS disease course (relapsing-remitting or progressive disease) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (six and over or below six) were extracted from the MS Register Hazard ratios (HRs) for any serious infection were estimated using flexible parametric models. Results: During a median follow-up of 9.6 years (interquartile range = 5.5-13.5 years), 1337 MS patients experienced a serious infection. Compared with individually matched people without MS, risk of serious infection was greater for progressive disease (HR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.52: 4.09) than relapsing-remitting disease (HR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.62:1.93). A similar pattern of risk was seen for dichotomised EDSS score (HR = 4.26; 95% CI 3.87: 4.70 for EDSS 6.0-9.5 and HR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.1853: 1.43 for EDSS 0.0-5.5). Overall, associations with greater disability did not notably differ by immunomodulatory therapy use, but associations with lower disability were more pronounced in patients receiving these therapies. Conclusions: Disease course or EDSS score (which may be more readily available than MS course in some patients) should be considered in individual management and monitoring of MS patients, including assessing benefit-risk of therapies that influence general immune function.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".