Comparative effectiveness of natalizumab on cognition in multiple sclerosis: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment occurs in 40%-70% of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of natalizumab compared with other disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) on improving cognition as measured by the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). METHODS: Data were collected as part of Swedish nationwide phase IV surveillance studies (2007-2020). An increase in SDMT score by ⩾10% of the difference between maximum score possible (110) and the baseline value was defined as cognitive improvement. The likelihood of improvement was compared between natalizumab-treated individuals and individuals treated with other DMTs using mixed effect logistic regression. Trend in odds of improvement was investigated using slope analyses. RESULTS: We included 2100 persons with relapsing-remitting MS treated with natalizumab and 2622 persons treated with other DMTs. At 6 months, 45% reached improvement. The natalizumab group showed largest odds of improvement during follow-up (odds ratio: 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.5). The odds of improvement increased by 7% (95% CI: 6-7) per month of natalizumab treatment. The equivalent estimate was 4% (95% CI: 2-5) for other monoclonal antibodies and nonsignificant for oral or platform therapies. CONCLUSION: Treatment with natalizumab or other monoclonal antibodies is associated with a significantly faster likelihood of cognitive improvement than platform or oral DMTs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".