Sex and age differences in the Multiple Sclerosis prodrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives Little is known of the potential sex and age differences in the MS prodrome. We investigated sex and age differences in healthcare utilization during the MS prodrome. Methods This was a population-based matched cohort study linking administrative and clinical data from British Columbia, Canada (population = 5 million). MS cases in the 5 years preceding a first demyelinating event (“administrative cohort;” n = 6,863) or MS symptom onset (“clinical cohort;” n = 966) were compared to age-, sex- and geographically-matched controls (n = 31,865/4,534). Negative binomial and modified Poisson models were used to compare the rates of physician visits and hospitalizations per international classification of diseases chapter, and prescriptions filled per drug class, between MS cases and controls across sex and age-groups (< 30, 30–49, ≥50 years). Results In the administrative cohort, males with MS had a higher relative rate for genitourinary-related visits (males: adjusted Rate Ratio (aRR) = 1.65, females: aRR = 1.19, likelihood ratio test P = 0.02) and antivertigo prescriptions (males: aRR = 4.72, females: aRR = 3.01 P < 0.01). Injury and infection-related hospitalizations were relatively more frequent for ≥50-year-olds (injuries < 30/30–49/≥50: aRR = 1.16/1.39/2.12, P < 0.01; infections 30–49/≥50: aRR = 1.43/2.72, P = 0.03), while sensory-related visits and cardiovascular prescriptions were relatively more common in younger persons (sensory 30–49/≥50: aRR = 1.67/1.45, P = 0.03; cardiovascular < 30/30–49/≥50: aRR = 1.56/1.39/1.18, P < 0.01). General practitioner visits were relatively more frequent in males (males: aRR = 1.63, females: aRR = 1.40, P < 0.01) and ≥50-year-olds (< 30/≥50: aRR = 1.32/1.55, P = 0.02), while differences in ophthalmologist visits were disproportionally larger among younger persons, < 50-years-old (< 30/30–49/≥50: aRR = 2.25/2.20/1.55, P < 0.01). None of the sex and age-related differences in the smaller clinical cohort reached significance (P ≥ 0.05). Discussion Sex and age-specific differences in healthcare use were observed in the 5 years before MS onset. Findings demonstrate fundamental heterogeneity in the MS prodromal presentation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".