Accuracy of serum neurofilament light to identify contrast-enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhancing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (CELs) indicate acute multiple sclerosis inflammation. Serum biomarkers, neurofilament light (sNfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) may increase in the presence of CELs, and indicate a need to perform MRI. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the accuracy of biomarkers to detect CELs. METHODS: = 557, 66% female). Optimal cut-points from Bland-Altman analysis for spot biomarker level and Youden's index for delta-change from remission were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients (21%) had CELs. A spot sNfL measurement >23.0 pg/mL corresponded to 7.0 times higher odds of CEL presence (95% CI: 3.8, 12.8), with 25.9% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.61; while sNfL delta-change >30.8% from remission corresponded to 5.0 times higher odds (95% CI: 3.2, 7.8), 52.6% sensitivity, 81.9% specificity, AUC 0.67. sGFAP had poor CEL detection. In patients > 50 years, neither cut-point remained significant. sNfL delta-change outperformed spot levels at identifying asymptomatic CELs (AUC 0.67 vs 0.59) and in patients without treatment escalation between samples (AUC 0.67 vs 0.57). CONCLUSION: Spot sNfL >23.0 pg/mL or a 30.8% increase from remission provides modest prediction of CELs in patients <50 years; however, low sNfL does not obviate the need for MRI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".