MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382360262 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285599

Multiple sclerosis: Exploring the limits and implications of genetic and environmental susceptibility

2023· article· en· W4382360262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas S. Goodin, Pouya Khankhanian, Pierre‐Antoine Gourraud, Nicolas Vince

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisGenetic predispositionGeneticsEvolutionary biologyEnvironmental healthBiologyComputational biologyMedicineBioinformaticsImmunologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore and describe the basis and implications of genetic and environmental susceptibility to multiple sclerosis (MS) using the Canadian population-based data. BACKGROUND: Certain parameters of MS-epidemiology are directly observable (e.g., the recurrence-risk of MS in siblings and twins, the proportion of women among MS patients, the population-prevalence of MS, and the time-dependent changes in the sex-ratio). By contrast, other parameters can only be inferred from the observed parameters (e.g., the proportion of the population that is "genetically susceptible", the proportion of women among susceptible individuals, the probability that a susceptible individual will experience an environment "sufficient" to cause MS, and if they do, the probability that they will develop the disease). DESIGN/METHODS: The "genetically susceptible" subset (G) of the population (Z) is defined to include everyone with any non-zero life-time chance of developing MS under some environmental conditions. The value for each observed and non-observed epidemiological parameter is assigned a "plausible" range. Using both a Cross-sectional Model and a Longitudinal Model, together with established parameter relationships, we explore, iteratively, trillions of potential parameter combinations and determine those combinations (i.e., solutions) that fall within the acceptable range for both the observed and non-observed parameters. RESULTS: Both Models and all analyses intersect and converge to demonstrate that probability of genetic-susceptibitly, P(G), is limited to only a fraction of the population {i.e., P(G) ≤ 0.52)} and an even smaller fraction of women {i.e., P(G│F) < 0.32)}. Consequently, most individuals (particularly women) have no chance whatsoever of developing MS, regardless of their environmental exposure. However, for any susceptible individual to develop MS, requires that they also experience a "sufficient" environment. We use the Canadian data to derive, separately, the exponential response-curves for men and women that relate the increasing likelihood of developing MS to an increasing probability that a susceptible individual experiences an environment "sufficient" to cause MS. As the probability of a "sufficient" exposure increases, we define, separately, the limiting probability of developing MS in men (c) and women (d). These Canadian data strongly suggest that: (c < d ≤ 1). If so, this observation establishes both that there must be a "truly" random factor involved in MS pathogenesis and that it is this difference, rather than any difference in genetic or environmental factors, which primarily accounts for the penetrance difference between women and men. CONCLUSIONS: The development of MS (in an individual) requires both that they have an appropriate genotype (which is uncommon in the population) and that they have an environmental exposure "sufficient" to cause MS given their genotype. Nevertheless, the two principal findings of this study are that: P(G) ≤ 0.52)} and: (c < d ≤ 1). Threfore, even when the necessary genetic and environmental factors, "sufficient" for MS pathogenesis, co-occur for an individual, they still may or may not develop MS. Consequently, disease pathogenesis, even in this circumstance, seems to involve an important element of chance. Moreover, the conclusion that the macroscopic process of disease development for MS includes a "truly" random element, if replicated (either for MS or for other complex diseases), provides empiric evidence that our universe is non-deterministic.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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 score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.021 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→